Many times atheists say that christians are the ones who should prove god exists. While this is true, I'm sure atheists who studied the Bible can also prove that Bible's god doesn't exist. There are many contradictions between science and Bible and I don't think it's too difficult to prove that the key events from Bible didn't happen. In this thread I want the atheists to post proves that Bible's god doesn't exist.

The scientific and archaelogical evidence that contradicts the Bible does not prove that the Christian god does not exist; it only proves that the Bible is inaccurate.

edit: just realised I misread the question. However, it's not clear to me that Biblical inaccuracies 'proves' that the god of the Bible doesn't exist. For example, inaccuracies in Harry Potter doesn't prove that Kings Cross station doesn't exist - the station exists, it is just described inaccurately. Depending on your angle you probably want to lay out your assumptions clearly to get useful answers.

But if key events like "Adam and Eve" or "the genesis" are inaccurate, doesn't this mean Christian god doesn't exist?

Let's suppose Adam and Eve were white. Where did black people come from in only a few thousand years?

And from all I know incest leads to major diseases.

Dinosaurus. Before Eve sinned, there was no death. Why did they die? Eve sinned only a couple of thousands of years ago but the dinosaurus were already gone.

These are all key events.

Maybe we can't prove that bible's god doesn't exist beyond a doubt but we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Depends on who you ask. Some Christians believe that inaccuracies in the key events would entail that God doesn't exist, some don't. Most theists here in RGT don't.

OK. Jesus made a false prophecy that the end of the world would occur within the lifetimes of his generation. This did not happen, leading to one of two conclusions:

1) Jesus was not a prophet.
2) The Bible is totally unreliable

1) disproves Christianity. 2) doesn't disprove Christianity exactly, but it would be very silly to believe in a God whose existence is attested only by a book which has been proven to be unreliable.

What?

Checkmate

Disproving the bible doesn't disprove god. God is in all holy books from the Quran to the Vedas. Just depends on how you look at it. Most Christians even believe the stories of the bible to be just stories. Fundamentalists and extremists may take them to heart but are the minority. I personally am agnostic and I wouldn't say the burden of proof is on either side unless they're trying to impose their will on the other side. Other wise, believe what you want, as there's no evidence to counter either claim (god or no god). A great example of this is the life of pi. I highly suggest it to anyone in this thread.

That's not true. You might be conflating "evidence" with "proof"?

Mmmm, not so sure in this case. If you claim that god X exists, I think the burden of proof lies with you. It shouldn't lie with the non-believer to provide evidence of the non-existence of God X and to claim that without that evidence of non-existence, God X must actually exist is an appeal to ignorance.

As an atheist, I sincerely wish this were possible. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to do this conclusively.

As MB says, the burden of proof IS on the side of those making the positive claim that God exist. The burden of proof is essentially a gentleman's agreement for debating claims, not a law. It always falls on the side making the positive claim of existence or a relationship between phenomena etc- so if Fred says "the sun doesn't exist" and Bob says "the sun exists", the burden of proof rests on Bob, despite it being an obvious truth. It's also worth noting that for pretty much any other debate, people LOVE to accept the burden of proof for their positive claims. When creationists challenge evolution, for example, I am never tempted to say "well, you can't prove it didn't happen", I am happy and keen to accept the challenge.

For a more detailed explanation of the burden of proof, this video is pretty awesome:



Finally:

I would say that the burden of proof is on the side of a person asserting a claim. That is, if you make a claim about the nature of the universe you have a burden to defend that claim. It isn't about whether the claim is "positive" or whether it is about existence vs nonexistence. So I submit that if a person makes the claim about the nature of the universe that "there does not exist a god" that they have a burden of proof to defend that claim just as the person who asserts "there does not exist a sun". If both parties are making incompatible claims, but they are both claims, then both parties have burden of proofs.

A: "I don't believe in the existence of God"
T: "I don't believe in the non-existence of God"
A: "Hmm, this sucks."

Think of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that a relationship between two (or more) phenomena does NOT exist. Using this sort of model for the burden of proof avoids contortionist rephrasing of claims so as to avoid having to defend one's position.

Also, ought implies can. Given that (except in special cases) non-existence can't be proven, it makes no sense to say that one ought to prove it. FWIW I'm aware that many weak atheists take your view of the burden of proof, but it seems nonsensical to me.

When I was a child I believed in god but I always believed the devil is just a story. I was stunned when I heard a priest saying that the devil exists.

If one side exists? Why would the other not exist?

What would account for all the bad things happening in the world if the devil did not exist? Or all those evil thoughts in your mind?

Someone has to be accountable...

What everyone said. Disproving aspects of the bible is not relevant when it comes to disproving a judaeochristian God, however, science disproves aspects of the bible you're talking about. Science is based on metrics, faith is based on the say so of a multi billion dollar organization based upon texts from millenia ago that exist in order to explain reality before science could. Science > faith.

The null hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis, which isn't a criticism of its usefulness, it is just to say that if one makes the claim "the null hypothesis is true" one still has to defend that claim. For instance, I can claim that being the president of the US is unrelated to whether one is a US citizen and I would have a burden of proof to defend that claim (something I would fail to do) despite it being the null hypothesis.

You are correct to note the relation to this comment between weak and strong atheism. The A above is indeed (a common variant) of the weak atheists position. While it is possible to have "weak theists" who make the comment T, it is rare that this actually occurs, most (but not all) theists are strong theists in the sense that they assert "god exists" (sometimes qualified in various ways).

It is also false to say that "non-existence" cannot be proven. As a mathematician I prove that, say, elements with certain properties cannot exist all the time. I wouldn't say this is even an issue of "special cases", I submit that a priori there is nothing that makes nonexistence in some way fundamentally harder than existence. Although I acknowledge the validity of the general heuristic for questions in the domain we are talking abuot.

But you make it seem that saying there is a god is the extreme view that has the burden of Proof. Actually atheists are the minority. MORE people believe there is a God. So wouldn't atheists then have the burden of proof?

And who gives a **** who has the "burden" if NEITHER side is provable! If I say there is aliens and you say there isn't aliens, neither provable, does it matter who has to prove it? Believe what you want and keep your beliefs to yourself or those interested in learning them. The only real answer until one side can find definitive proof.

The burden of proof lies on those who make claims about the universe, it isn't a popularity contest.

You may (given your low post count) not be aware of this, but many atheists are what is sometimes called "weak atheists" in that they do not believe in god or perhaps don't find sufficient evidence and reason to justify believing in a god, as opposed to claiming that god does not exist which is sometimes called a "strong atheist". So there is a distinct asymmetry in the nature of the claims being made by both side and the "both can't prove it, so lalalala" type response doesn't really apply.

That's not what faith is based on for many. It may be what religious institution(s) are based on.

But both you (saying there is NO God) and the religious (saying there IS a God) are both MAKING A CLAIM about the universe! How do you not see this? And what does my "low post count" have to do with atheism?? LOL at your reasoning. And there's an actual WORD for this "weak atheist" you speak of. It's called AGNOSTIC. You use language like you're an absolute genius but you seem so uninformed. For someone with such great vocabulary your arguments are horrible. You're talking to a person who has devoted countless time to spiritual and scientific studies pertaining to the origins of the universe and life. Sorry my "low post count" didn't reflect that lol

? That is not how the null hypothesis works.

Well, as laid out above, I disagree.

Unfortunately, I think most agnostic atheists are fundamentally wrong about epistemology. But that's a side issue and has been discussed elsewhere.

Mathematics certainly IS a special case, and generally considered one of the only domains where proof is possible!

Eh? I'm not saying that non-existence is harder than existence. There are an infinite number of non-existent entities and only a finite amount of existent entities. Similarly there is a vast (though not unbounded) number of actually possible non-relationships between existent phenomena and a much much smaller number of actually possible relationships between existent phenomena. So, a priori, the chance that an entity exists is much less likely than that entity not existing, hence the burden of proof falling on existence claims and not on non-existence claims.

No, I just explained this. The burden doesn't lie on the person who has the minority view (cf the "sun does not exist" example) it lies on those who make positive existence claims.

And as I explained, if one is not interested in debating then there is no burden of proof. The BoP is an agreement for those choosing to debate. You seem quite excitable about this issue - why?