Argument for the Non-Existence of God (No. 4)

From Demand to Prove a Negative

P 1 )  The theist makes the demand that the non-theist prove that his or her deity of choice does not exist (when the non-theist asks for proof of their deity of choice's existence).

P 2 )  The theist is forced to shift the burden to the non-theist by this demand because he/she implicitly has neither any empirical proof nor a valid, cogent argument with positive reasons to demonstrate that their deity of choice exists.

Conclusion:   The theists' god therefore does not exist. 

[The non-theist might also ask the theist about the extent of their study/research into evidence of their god's existence, because if their study is quite broad, it gives them even less reason to make the demand, since their studies should allow them to be able to reasonably demonstrate their god's existence even if through logical argumentation.]


This argument is similar to the Argument for the Non-Existence of God (No. 1), but is more specific concerning the theists' method of argumentation (asking atheist to prove a negative).

Argument for the Non-Existence of God (No. 3)

From Objectivism

P 1 ) The primacy of existence maintains that existence (or "existents") exist (in a mind-independent reality). 

P 2 ) Consciousness cannot occur unless it has something (existents) to be conscious of, and so is secondary and subordinate to the primacy of existence.

P 3 ) The conscious only has this relationship and it is not possible for a conscious to create or otherwise change existents through only its conscious will (through only "thought").  A consciousness does not hold metaphysical primacy over reality.

P 4 ) "God" is ultimately defined in many religions as a consciousness with a "will."

Conclusion:  Since a consciousness does not hold metaphysical primacy over reality and it is not possible for a consciousness to create/change existents through "will" alone, such a god as defined cannot exist.*

*For more insight on the primacy of existence and the above argument, check out Dawson Bethrick's website/blog, Incinerating Presuppositionalism.

Argument for the Non-Existence of God (No. 2)

From Worship

P 1 - Worship ("systemic adoration in a religion") is an anthropomorphic tribal convention associated with humans, and is only narcissistic supply for a human's ego needs.

P 2 - A fully omnipotent, omniscient supernatural being would not require such worship since it is not human and should be absolutely secure and certain of its omnipotence/omniscience.

P 3 -  Many religious texts and doctrines, such as Judeo-Christian and Muslim, claim their god requires such worship.

Conclusion:  Since these gods should not require worship if they were indeed gods as described in  the religions' doctrine (omnipotent and omniscient), these gods do not exist.

Note:  A god not requiring worship (if omniscient/omnipotent) could therefore exist.

Argument for the Non-Existence of God (No. 1)

From TAG/Presuppositionalism

P 1 - Theist apologists have resorted to negative, burden-shifting argumentation by attacking the capacity and ability of their opponents to even argue by claiming their particular god "owns" that capacity and ability, i.e., the laws of logic, etc.

P 2 - Theist apologists have resorted to such argumentation because they inherently recognize that there is no evidence or compelling arguments to positively prove the existence of their god, or that there are no other positive reasons to believe in their chosen religion.

P 3 -  If any theist god existed, it would not need such negative argumentation in lieu of theists offering positive reasons to believe.

Conclusion:  Therefore, by the theists' own admission, their god must not exist.