Why do Athiests require 'proof' that God exists?

[Paul the Human]

---

Thanks for your responses everyone, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you.

Firstly I want to clear something up - Descartes "I think therefore I am" doesn't prove 'YOU' exist, it proves 'I' exist. How can 'I' know 'you' think therefore you are!! From my perspective you could be a person in a dream, virtual reality or just an empty headed android.

Why wouldn't I?

If I told you I had a unicorn in my garden I would expect you to ask to see it, or for 'proof'. My point is that the existence of God cannot be proven, due to the nature of what God is, and that when Atheists use the issue of there being no 'proof' for God's existence it is not a valid argument.

I do accept that I can never know if God exists or not, just as I employ the same principles with the tooth fairy, Odin, Zeus, Ghosts etc. etc. It's just that I find the complete and utter lack of any evidence, credibility and verisimilitude overwhelming.

Good point. However the tooth fairy is a little woman with wings, not an ineffable, omnipresent being. Therefore we can prove if the tooth fairy (and the other things you mentioned) exists because we can look for little women with wings. We can't look for God.

Oh, and which God are you talking about? All of them or just the one that your where indoctrinated into believing because of the geographical location of your birth and the views of those around you?

For now let's just say all/any of them

Atheism isn't a philosophy or a method, there's no "atheist logic". What you're describing here is solipsism.

Allow me to rephrase this: using the same atheist argument agaisnt the existence of God I can disprove your existence. Therefore the argument is flawed.

Thanks again for the replies everyone!

---

That's what I thought. Yet another believer crying "Why don't you believe me?", but offering no reason to believe them. Oh well. It's not like I expected anything different this time.