My Cumulative Case for the Nonexistence of God
Given the above definitions, I am an atheist in the full sense of the word. Not only do I lack the belief that God exists, I hold the opposite, positive belief that God does not exist. Since my atheism is not a mere lack of belief, I have a burden of proof to provide arguments or evidence for the truth of atheism just as much as a theist has the burden of proof to provide arguments or evidence for the truth of theism.
Anti-atheists sometimes object that one would have to be omniscient in order to prove that God does not exist. However, as I argue elsewhere, a person does not have to be omniscient in order to prove that a concept is incoherent. If a concept entails a logical contradiction, one does not have to be omniscient in order to show that. Moreover--and this is a much more important point--I do not claim to be able to "prove" the nonexistence of God anyway. Instead, I present evidence which is much more likely if atheism is true than if theism is true. (In the jargon of the philosophy of religion, my arguments for atheism are all evidential arguments.)
In what follows, I will outline a cumulative case for the nonexistence of God. Although I believe that each of my arguments constitute good, independent reasons for believing atheism and rejecting theism, my arguments are even stronger when considered together. My cumulative case for atheism includes the following arguments:
1. The History of Science. If there is a single theme unifying the history of science, it is that naturalistic explanations work. The history of science contains numerous examples of naturalistic explanations replacing supernatural ones and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing naturalistic ones. Indeed, naturalistic explanations have been so successful that even most scientific theists concede that supernatural explanations are, in general, implausible even on the assumption that theism is true. Such explanatory success is antecedently more likely on naturalism--which entails that all supernaturalistic explanations are false--than it is on theism. Thus the history of science is some evidence for atheism and against theism.
See Keith M. Parsons, Science, Confirmation, and the Theistic Hypothesis (Ph.D. Dissertation, Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Queen's University, 1986), p. 46; Paul Draper, "Evolution and the Problem of Evil" in Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (3rd ed., ed. Louis Pojman, Wadsworth, 1997), pp. 223-224.
2. The argument from physical minds. Scientific evidence shows that consciousness and personality are highly dependent upon the brain. Nothing mental happens without something physical happening. That strongly implies that the mind cannot exist independently of physical arrangements of matter. In other words, we do not have a soul. And this is exactly what we would expect if naturalism is true. But if theism is true, then our minds should not depend on our brains for their existence; we should have souls. Also, if theism is true, then God is a disembodied mind; God's mind is not in any sense dependent on physical arrangements of matter. But if nothing mental happens without something physical happening, that is evidence against both the existence of souls and the existence of any being who is supposed to have a disembodied mind, including God. Therefore, the physical nature of minds is unlikely if theism is true, but what we would expect if naturalism is true. See Michael Tooley, "Opening Arguments" The Craig-Tooley Debate.
3. The argument from biological evolution. This argument assumes the truth of biological evolution; for a defense of that assumption, see the Talk.Origins archive. To be sure, biological evolution is logically compatible with theism; God could have used evolution to create life. But if theism were true, God could have also used many other methods to create life, methods which are impossible if atheism is true. In contrast, if atheism is true, evolution pretty much has to be true. Furthermore, since theism implies a metaphysical dualism, it is antecedently likely on theism that minds are fundamentally nonphysical entities and therefore that conscious life is fundamentally different from nonconscious life. But this in turn makes it likely that conscious life was created independently of nonconscious life--that evolution is false. Thus, the scientific fact of biological evolution is more likely on the assumption that atheism is true than on the assumption that theism is true. See Draper 1997, pp. 219-230.
due to this post is tooooooooo long,pls refer such
http://www.religionisdumb.com/logickills3athargu2.htm