Most of the arguments atheist have are in the line there is no probe of the existence of god.

Some people ( including me ) would say, there is no need for such a probe, but this is not the topic here.

My question to any atheist is: Is there any compelling probe, definitive and final that GOD DOES NOT EXISTS?

Regards.

Charles,

The burden of proof rests on the person making a claim. If I claim that there is a god, then I need to provide some evidence for that claim. Likewise, if I claim there is no god, then I also need to provide evidence. Atheists, generally speaking, are saying that they do not believe in gods because there is insufficient evidence for such belief. Atheism is a conservative skeptical position given the fact that there is no convincing evidence of gods.

You will not convince an atheist that there is a god by trying to shift the burden of proof. We do understand that there could be a god somewhere. So what? There could be unicorns, pixies, gremlins, dragons, leprechauns, and the tooth fairy, as well. They could all be hiding under a rock on the other side of the universe. The time to believe in such things is when there is evidence for them.

Similarly, I can claim that I'm a billionaire and that it must be true unless you can prove that I don't have the money. If you can't disprove my claim (because I provide you no means of checking), it doesn't make me any richer.

There is little agreement on what "God" means, which provides atheists some evidence that it's a mental construct that differs in many people's minds. There are many definitions/properties of "God" that are self-contradictory and therefore a person can make a stronger claim: that such a god is impossible. For example, if "God" is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omni-benevolent (all good), then why is there evil in the world? This is called the Problem of Evil and it was originally proposed by Epicurus before Jesus was born/invented. Believers have a response to this question, but it is unconvincing.

19th Century British mathematician and philosopher William Kingdon Clifford said it best: "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

I'm 75 years old and I've been visiting here and reading the message board because it's too hot to go anywhere. I can't understand what the religious folks are complaining about. Someone believes this and someone doesn't. They say assume this, that and the other thing is true. There are some good items to read on here but I don't think they can understand them. Most of them are just plain ignorant. As for trying to educate them, I don't want to discourage you, but some of them are nuts. I think it's going to be rough. I have never given religion much credit. I don't know where I fit into all of this but it's not with the saints. If there is a God fine, we will all know when we die, but I don't think there is. I sure don't think anyone would burn forever because they don't know.

Charles said, "Most of the arguments atheist have are in the line there is no probe of the existence of god."

Did you mean proof? Why did you say probe - is English not your native language? Or you could have been trying to say prove and hit the b, which is next to the v. Otherwise that is a very bad misspelling of a simple word. Atheists (those who do not believe in the religion mythos) don't have to prove anything about the existence of some deity (pick one) that they simply don't believe exists.

Charles said, "Some people (including me) would say, there is no need for such a probe, but this is not the topic here."

Yes, there is need for proof of the validity of something that people are expected to believe in, worship, and support with their money. No charlatan ever gives "proof" before they relieve suckers of their cash. Your assumption that something should be accepted as true without proof is absurd! Not believing a claim is not the act of making a claim. I don't have to prove the Easter Bunny does not exist - because I don't believe it does. If someone says the Easter Bunny does exist then they need to prove it because they are making a claim.

Charles said, "My question to any atheist is: Is there any compelling probe, definitive and final that GOD DOES NOT EXISTS?"

If I can't prove that fairies don't exist- well then - I just guess that everybody should believe in fairies and fairyland. Or does the burden of proof fall on those who believe in fairies. A claim has to be proven by those who make the claim. Why would anyone have to prove that something doesn't exist when there isn't a shred of proof that it does - or ever did exist? A god that is invisible and undetectable - is not that different from something that simply isn't there.

Julius Caesar 100-44 BC, deified a god l00 years before the birth of Jesus who was also deified as a god. Julius Caesar was murdered at the height of his power; Caesar was elevated to a God after his death. Unlike the mythical Jesus Christ, we know what Caesar looked like (statues and paintings) and we have a complete history of his life. We have words written by Caesar himself and words written by his friends and his enemies. Artifacts confirm his life and death.

Only eight people tell the entire story of Jesus life, miracles, death and resurrection (those who could have known Jesus leave out the virgin birth of Jesus) Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude.- it is unrealistic and is unbelievable.