You must be expected to prove God dose not exist. Otherwise, your definition is incorrect. You cannot say, "God dosen't exist because believers can't prove He exists," nor "God dosen't exist because He hasn't shown Himself," because those are emotional arguments, which are void of intelligence and reason. Heck, I could make emotional arguments for God's existence - but I don't, because my belief is not based on emotion.
The following was posted on another thread and I felt is was worth of posting here.
Athiests: Prove that God dosen't exist
No emotional answers are allowed. Nine examples of emotional answers:
God dosen't exist because there is evil/suffering/death.
God dosen't exist because believers are hypocrites.
God dosen't exist because believers can't prove God exists.
God dosen't exist because I have never seen or felt God.
God dosen't exist because my prayers aren't answered.
God dosen't exist because Christians killed people in the Inquisition/Crusade/ancient time.
God dosen't exist because the Bible is man-made/corrupted.
God dosen't exist because God killed people in the Bible.
God dosen't exist because Jesus is not God.
Besides emotional answers, you are free to answer any way you wish.
So, the floor is yours, SciWriter.
Those are not my answers, and true, some are emotional, and one is useful only for about the Bible being wrong, but this one, too, has no bearing on the God or not question of a universal negative, for only self-contradiction can be employed.
God can't exist, for not only can beings not be systems both fully intact and as elemental as fundamentally first before all, but also that there is nothing to make anything of, and nothing is certainly not God, but its opposite, nor could this basis of nothing have had creation or a Creator, which is still the same result even if we posit the only other option as stuff having been forever, although this is a very poor option and cannot be so, since the 'elementals' have specific definition in many particulars, not mention that there are only a certain number of the 'elementals'.
God would certainly have to be what we call a being with a system of mind if he thought, planned, and created the entirely specific 'elementals' that underlie the cosmos and all further composites and complexities made from them on up.
Basically, I provide several arguments, but the only one needed is that beings cannot be first as fundamental. You can have a smart alien, though, but that would not be God.
Anyway, the notion is self-contradictory. No complexities can come first before all.
Believers would have to undo all this, totally demolishing it, plus provide a good proof of their own, and of course one may not just make a definition of God and then use it as 'proof' for what one is trying to prove.
'God' is a fine wish, as well as what some have added to it as He being a good guy and rewarding us, but, alas, it is not to be. Not even a simple molecule could have been first, much less some ultimate complexity, infinite even, as 'God', and, by my other conclusions, not even something so simple as an electron could have been first, forever there, for then what of its spin, charge, size, mass, location, speed, and other properties?
1. No systems as fundamental, so no elemental Fellow.
2. The basis of All must be eternal, so no creation.
3. The basis as only it can be—nothing—is not God.
If life required Life (God) before it, then Life would have then required LIFE before it, but I'm not including this one, as it just shows a misstep in thinking, but is not of a disproof quality.
