The reason I ask is for the following reason. Whenever I get into theological debates with people of faith (Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc) they always ask the the question, "Prove to me that (insert diety) doesnt exist". My athiesm stems from the pursuit of truth and reason. Empirical evidence is something that those who practice a faith, seem unable to supply, they seem to have the same glazed look in their eye as they answer "I have faith" as if that answers anything. I do not wish to belittle peoples faith, that is a private matter between them and their diety, but I do get irritated when I have to have religion thrust upon me either directly or indirectly. Directly as in people knocking at my door try to convert me, or indirectly when the seperation of church and state is threatened.

In a scientific sense, not, it is not possible to prove the non-existence of something. It may, in certain circumstances, be possible to prove the non-existence of something at a certain place and a certain time. So if a particular God is alleged to light fires on Thursdays, you may be able to prove either that fires are not lit on Thursdays or that fires are lit bay some means other than God. But until they give you some concrete example of the way in which God has a measurable effect on the world, which you could check up and prove to have happened or not happened, there is nothing you could possibly do to disprove it. Indeed, a fundamental tenet of science is that, as soon as you have a hypothesis, you should think "how could I disprove this", and when you have discovered how you could disprove it, attempt to do so. If you succeed in the disproof, you were wrong. If you fail, then you hypothesis has started on the path that leads from hypothesis to theory. In fact, I think you could put the impetus back on to the theists. Invite them to show a way, any way, in which the existence of their God could be *dis*proved, and then to show that disproof fails. Anything for which this cannot be done is imagination. Not necessarily wrong, but equally not necessarily right.

No, a universal negative cannot be proven. In such a sense, teh non-existence of a god cannot be proven. However, if a theist (personal) god did exist, their existence in the world COULD be proven by way of their interaction in the world.

In logic, it is not possible to prove a negative.

It is not impossible to prove a negative. I can prove conclusively that no unicorns exist in my soda. It is impossible to conclusively prove a universal negative. We simply cannot look everywhere. (Think Russell's Teapot...can you conclusively prove it doesn't exist somewhere?) It becomes more difficult with deities, because the definition of Deity/Deities varies so much. The more specific the definition, the greater the likelihood that you can conclusively disprove it. I just gave this example, but I will give it again. I cannot disprove that a deity of some sort exists somewhere. However, I can CONCLUSIVELY disprove that a deity named Yahweh exists who created the Moon as a lesser of the same thing as the Sun. This I can conclusively say. It isn't difficult. I only need to make the observation, and show the evidence and proof, that the Moon is not the same type of thing as the Sun. So, that definition is conclusively disproven. Invariably, it only means that the definition will morph. "Ok, Yahweh exits, but He didn't create the Moon as a lesser of the same thing as the Sun." The process then starts with some other aspect of the definition. Of course, those proposing the hypothesis (ie: God exists) are the ones who are burdened with supplying the evidence. At least, they are if they want their hypothesis taken seriously.

The proof of the non-existence of a god is the lack of concrete evidence of its existence. That is about all that can be said on the subject.

1) "the statement that “you cannot prove a negative” is simply false. On the surface, it seems to be true: if Person A says “I think God exists” and Person B says “I don’t think God exists,” it’s pretty clear that Person B is going to have a hard time proving that there isn’t a God. However, if you look a little closer, it actually depends on the nature of the negative statement being made. Here are some negative statements that can be proven very easily: Five is not equal to four The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld The tsetse fly is not native to North America Clearly, it’s possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God – that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.” Logical statements have to abide by certain rules and restrictions. In order for a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be presented in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested to make sure it is true. The existence of God is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical. Of course you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist – no one even knows what God is supposed to be." Source and further information: http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/articles/cantprovenegative.html 2) "This is really the idea behind the claim that "you can't prove a negative"--that we don't have the resources or ability to exhaustively enumerate all examples over the entire universe. But notice that this is an issue whether the proposition is positive or negative, and that all positive propositions have equivalent negative propositions, and vice versa. Also notice that, if the scope of the domain is sufficiently small, proof can be quite easy." "All that lies behind the more precise statement, "you can't prove a universal negative (or negative existential) statement" is that the most straight-forward, direct manner of proof--exhaustive enumeration--is not always available due to practical limitations. Therefore, to all of you out there that I have admonished with the "you can't prove a negative" reprimand, I apologize. I was wrong, and I take credit for this failing. I should've said, “It is impossible to enumerate through all possibilities within the domain in a reasonable amount of time -- and thus, the burden of proof is yours!" It doesn't have quite the same zing, but at least it's accurate." Source and further information: http://threadtheneedle.blogspot.com/2005/04/you-cant-prove-negative.html Further information: http://www.discord.org/~lippard/debiak.html 3) "Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference." "The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises. That just what an inductive argument is. We’d better not dismiss induction because we’re not getting certainty out of it, though. Why do you think that the sun will rise tomorrow?" "So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it. That’s why people keep believing in alien abductions, even when flying saucers always turn out to be weather balloons, stealth jets, comets, or too much alcohol." Source and further information: http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf