A simple argument against God

[Lek]

Prove God does not exist.

The burden of proof lies on he who alleges. Religious people should know that I’m perfectly willing to believe in god(s), ghosts, mediums, demons, angels, spirits, channeling, miracles, horoscopes, astrology, psychics, Ouija boards, the supernatural, and anything else for that matter as long as they adhere to one proviso: Prove it! Don’t give me speculation, guesses, hopes, dreams, wishes, desires, beliefs, faith (or appeals to faith), or indoctrinations. Don’t give me one-time-only, non-repeatable, non-testable events. Don’t give me internal alterations in one’s psychology or physiology that can’t be tested observed, or demonstrated, only felt or believed. And don’t give me effects that can’t be clearly related to the supposed cause.

I have no objection to believing in a god as long as proof based upon a rational standard of knowledge is forthcoming. Is that too much to ask? But surely theists can’t expect me to adopt their beliefs on the basis of what has been presented thus far. Every “proof” I’ve heard and every piece of evidence I’ve seen for the existence of god(s) is easily countered by rational evidence and arguments to the contrary. No convincing evidence for the existence of any deity has ever emerged. But I’m more than willing to listen to theistic arguments or view theistic evidence as long as cross-examination is permitted. As conditions now stand, theology rests far more on superstition and faith than upon facts and reason.

I can't force anyone to believe. I enjoy the discussion, but the decision to believe in God or not can only be made by each individual.