One cannot disprove the existence of gods as with any unfalsifiable claim. However the onus of proof does not rest with those who reject theism, but rather with those theists who make the claim that a god does exist.

To date they theists have provided no reliable evidence. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that no gods do exist, for that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed just as easily.

Our human nature always wants us to put meaning into things that aren't actually there, as a way to show that we aren't just a spec in the universe. By deeming that we were put here for a reason makes us 'special', without this claim we are nothing. Giving meaning to our lives all means that we want to give meaning to when we die thus creating 'Heaven'.

We will always want to be remembered as a race but sadly this will not happen, we are to small to cause a big significance in the universe.

Well that's just my opinion and I respect yours as a theist.

I used to think like that too. Then I realized that when I say "There's no proof that God ever existed", then it's not fair for me to assume that since there's no actual proof of 'The Big Bang' or anything like that. Everything is just assumptions and speculations.

That may not relate much to the topic, but when you start using the words "Logic" and "Reality" you should just stop. Not saying you're wrong, but everybody may think differently and have a different logic and how they think. Then reality is a pretty straight forward word, but some may have a different mind set and reality than most.

But then again I'm just rambling on and I'm pretty sure this all only makes sense to me.

XxGA3MRxX wrote for nothing to exist, something must exist -

Not really.
That depends on semantics rather than metaphysics.
Personally, I think the only good arguments against God's existence are the morality based ones.
I simply don't think we know enough about science, philosophy, the Universe or possibility itself to tackle such a large question while we are really still bumbling around in the dark and then claim absolutes.
Morality based arguments are here, we can understand them, we can refer to Biblical texts.
It doesn't take wild assumption or twists of semantics to come to a conclusion.

Moby wrote

XxGA3MRxX wrote for nothing to exist, something must exist -

Not really.
That depends on semantics rather than metaphysics.
Personally, I think the only good arguments against God's existence are the morality based ones.
I simply don't think we know enough about science, philosophy, the Universe or possibility itself to tackle such a large question while we are really still bumbling around in the dark and then claim absolutes.
Morality based arguments are here, we can understand them, we can refer to Biblical texts.
It doesn't take wild assumption or twists of semantics to come to a conclusion.

GIVE THIS MAN A AWARD!! thanks so much for saying that. I couldn't have said it better

i liked this post until it got to the part about God. i don't like when people talk about God existing, or not existing. no one knows for real so people shouldn't argue about it. My biggest pet peve is when people argue about something when they have no evidence to back it up.

>Therefore, for reality to have not existed at any point in time, it would paradoxically have to have existed at the exact same time - for reality to have been created by a God, it must have NOT existed at one point, which is logically impossible.
-I have an issue with this part. The words we use, "existence" and "nonexistence" only take meaning after the fact and in hindsight. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that God exists, and is a real entity that made everything. Back then, in nothingness, there was no concept of "existence", because nothing existed. After God hypothetically created everything, things "existed", and "existence" has a meaning. Now, we can go back and say with certainty, "back then nothing existed, and now things exist". For example, let's say there was a being that existed in absolute zero temperature (impossible, I know, but please humor me for a bit). That being would have no understanding of "heat", or movement of molecules , as it has never experienced anything outside that frame of reference, but after you introduce it to heat, it can now go back and say "yes, back then I didn't have heat, and now I do"

Sorry i just had to point out my mistakes...