"Why is it important for non-believers to prove there is no God?"

But we already know that the Bible isnt 100% correct, even Islam says it is wrong.

There is no such thing as heaven and hell. Everything that you believe in, everything you see, hear, taste and smell, and all of your beliefs about god, heaven and hell are purely limited to the space of your brain. Once your brain dies, nothing else can survive. You cannot see without a brain. You cannot think without a brain. You will no longer be able to believe without your brain. Once your brain dies, you are gone, and that is the end of life.

 

You couldnt be more incorrect. Science fully understands how solar systems and planets form, and it is believed that our planet formed no differently.

We are just trying to find out what we can about the formation of life because Darwin placed forward his theory of evolution, and like any theory, scientists work to prove or disprove them. So far, we have had nothing less then overwhelming support for evolution, and there has been nothing yet that has disproven the theory.

 

But your question you asked is very unprofesional and biased, and has attracted this attention because it IS a religious question asking for answers from Athiests. You asked why it is important for athiests to 'DISPROVE' god, when in fact god has never yet been 'PROVEN' by religion to exist. You cannot disprove something that hasnt yet been proven, your question should have been 'Why is it so important for religion to prove there is a god?'

Also science has NEVER opposed the idea of God, all it does is write and test neutral, unbiased theories that have nothing to do with god, but trying to understand how our world and universe work. Religion always opposes this, science doesnt oppose religion.

Magazines are biased and are only trying to create stories to sell copies. I understand this and never read magazines as they are only opinions and not reliable sources of information. However, average people believe everything they read in magazines and newspapers as the truth, and the only thing that this article is going to do is furthur provoke christians and turn them against science. I oppose your question and whichever magazine you are writing for because of this. In the long run, this is an article that will turn more guillable christians against science.

 

But what proof would you accept, bhavv? For example, no one has ever proven that electricity exists. No one really knows what electricity is. They know how it seems to behave. They construct theories and test them in order to predict results. Under certain conditions that we call 'normal,' the results can be duplicated. Yet that is not proof. I do not submit that the generally accept theory of electromagnetism is incorrect. I do submit that it is not proven. So I ask, what level of evidence of things we cannot see is really proof? There is no real proof of anything at this level. And that is the level on which one necessarily converses when one entertains the notion of God.

Regarding science, science cannot explain creation. Science can explain what occurred after creation, right up to the moment of the same, but not creation itself. Science even predicts a moment of creation; but it cannot explain it. If it could explain it, it could duplicate it, which it cannot. And it is not that science has just not gotten there yet. The road science presently travels down is an impossible maze of endless corredors, one leading to the next and the next and the next to infinity. That road is as continuously open-ended as creation is discrete. Right now science wrestles with a paradox. It tries to explain something that occured during a discrete moment of the history of this universe with a theory that has no such moment in an endless number of universes. This is why I say that creation is outside the realm of science. And even science predicts this realm, one outside of the known scientific realm, one into which Man cannot enter, but a realm that is scientifically consistent with the notion of the realm of God. The reason science presently enters this endless maze of possibilities is that it can only knock on the door of truth. It cannot enter. What remains outside of the door is an infinite number of possibilities. That is where science stands and will always stand.

Regarding your comment, I am trying to imagine a religion that has opposed science's attempt to test neutral unbiased theories that try to explain how the universe works. I cannot think of any. As I said at the outset of this thread, religion begins where science leaves off. There is no conflict here. Science cannot explain what religion explains. Religion cannot explain what science explains. I know of no religion that opposes science unless science first steps over the line of its own inherent limitations and alleges that what lies on the other side does not exist. That is where you and I are standing presently, straddling that line. You, a man of science, allege that God does not exist, (I'll get to agnosticism below) yet you have no scientific proof. You can't because all the science is at least consistent with the notion that God does exist. Does that science prove God? Certainly not to your satisfaction. Yet the evidence of science, as I have earlier brought into this thread, is at least consistent with the notion that God exists. So until science can actually disprove what it already knows about relativity and the slowing of time as energy and mass increase, the burden of proof, it seems to me, is one science, not religion.

Suffice it to say, if one is predisposed not to believe in God, one will not believe in God, regardless of the evidence that might tend to support it. Only a personal experience with the power of God would convince such a person. Reason cannot pass such a highly placed bar.

And one last note on agnosticism. I believe that this term is a nice way to say 'atheist.' Agnostics claim that they are open to the existence of God, or not. They just don't know. Yet the conditions under which these folks would actually believe in God cannot exist, or at least cannot exist to their satisfaction. That is what these two last entries, yours and mine, are all about. Since the acceptable conditions under which an agnotic would believe in God are impossible to exist, impossible solely due to the level of certainty the agnostic places on such conditions, impossible also is for the agnostic to ever believe in God. The agnostic lives in the default, the default of no God. The agnostic is therefore a de facto atheist. Either one believes in God or one does not. That, it seems to me, is the litmus test for defining atheism. I think agnostics fool themselves with terms.

Finally, bhavv, I do not indict here, I explore. So please do not take my remarks as an indictment on you or anyone. You have every reason and right to believe what you believe. And I respect that right. I explore these ideas; but claim no knowledge of things that you yourself do not possess in equal amount.