First of all, I rather like the premise of this post. It is completely true that there is a big difference between failing to prove something and disproving something.
If someone told you my middle name was Renfrew, and you had no evidence that he was telling the truth, this would not mean that this was evidence against that being my middle name.
However, that argument cannot be used as strongly in this case.
Humanity has always wanted to explain things. When we could not find an explanation, we would make one up, one that would explain every data point we would see.
Greco-roman mythology was a compilation of stories that would explain every event, because they lacked a better explanation.
For instance, winter was 3 months long, because the daughter of the harvest goddess ate three pomegranate seeds when in the underworld, and thus was bound there 3 months every year, during which time her mother would go into mourning, and all crops would wither.
When we fail to explain something with the natural, we turn to the supernatural, because any reason is, in the mind of man, better than no reason, regardless of its correctness.
Now, some intelligent readers may say that I have yet to disprove God at all, and have only stated a theory about where religion in general comes from that, even if correct, would not disprove God.
You would be correct. Bravo for you. (Or Brava, as the case may likely be. I have noticed a negative correlation between intelligence and number of Y chromosomes)
Anyways, my proof against God is this.
God, and religion explain what we were unable as a species to explain otherwise. As long as the original ignorance exists, then there exists no proof against the supernatural, and in fact, every occurrence of an un-explained phenomenon seems to serve as proof FOR the supernatural.
However, as soon as the correct explanation is found, any other explanations that are contradictory become un-arguably false.
Back to the mythology example:
The theory about the length of winter, as long as no other explanation is found, is strengthened by every seasonal cycle. The fact that the myth provides an explanation for seasons, and that seasons keep happening, is the only proof for the myth.
When astronomy becomes known, and seasons are now explained by the movement of planets, a theory that not only explains the data points, but also holds up with the rest of science, and also measurements about planets, and all manners of other data and information, it becomes clear that the planets are the cause of the seasons.
This does serve as proof against the myth, because if would be illogical to claim that the reason for the seasons is simultaneously a grieving harvest goddess, and the movement of the planets. One explanation necessarily replaces the other, because, unless the contention that both the harvest goddess and the planetary movement both contribute, or take turns, is what one is claiming, then one cannot logical claim that both are the reason.
The same holds true for the existence of God.
Someone, a very long time ago, looked at the species diversity of our planet, and couldn't explain it. People had no idea where the world came from, and had no answers to what happened after death, or why people are intelligent, or any number of other things.
So, preferring any explanation to no explanation, religion came about.
Different parts of the world, not being able to compare notes with each other, all made up different stories, and all gained followers by claiming that their account was the word of God.
However, the answers to these questions are now known.
Religion will claim that the world is a few thousand years old, created by God in a single day.
Religion will claim that over the next 5 days (the next one being a day of rest), God created all the species of this planet.
Religion will claim that man gained out massive intelligence (which I am beginning to doubt exists), as a result of eating a forbidden fruit.
The proof for these claims is that someone made up a story that, if true, would explain everything he couldn't explain before. He had no other proof.
The proof for these claims is that someone very long ago, claimed that God said it, and people believed him.
The proof for these claims is that for a long time, no one had a better explanation. People liked "God did it", much better than "I honestly don't know"
However, all this proof goes away, when we now have a real explanation.
Science claims, and provides layers and layers of proof, that the world is millions of years old, and the universe older still. We have carbon dating, fossil records, radioactive decay, and, with powerful telescopes, have been able to see light from fractions of a second after the big bang, which is completely consistent with every other piece of scientific evidence.
We now know where species diversity comes from. With bacteria, we have even been able to observe it on a timescale that is shorter than a human life. We have seen bacteria evolve to become anti-biotic resistant, such that it is now a new species. We know how genetic mutations work, and know that they code for new heritable traits. We know that geographic isolation, and specialization both can lead to new species forming.
We know that human intelligence evolved slowly, and that, unlike what religion claims, man is not the only intelligent species.
These arguments appear to be attacking just the Judeo-Christian faiths, and not God in general.
It is true, I, as of yet, cannot do a test that conclusively proves that there is no God. (Though every case of someone shouting "God, if you are out there, give me a sign", being greeted by, at best, something that can be shown to already be about to happen, seems to provide serious evidence for either his non-existence or dickishness, or odd sense of humour)
However, I can say that everything that God used to be the only explanation for, now has a much more confirm-able, logical, scientifically valid explanation, and that both explanations cannot logically both be correct.
I cannot say that God does not exist, and be able to 100% be logically sure.
I can however, contend that not only is there no proof for his existence, but that the existence of valid alternative explanations for what he allegedly has done, serve a proof against his existence.
Need I remind you that the Church has historically been anti-science (once it was clear that it didn't support their theories).
The church was against the Helio-centric model of the solar system for a very long time, and vehemently opposed the notion that orbits were not perfect circles.
So, yes. I do understand that not having of proof of God's existence is not the same as having proof against it. However, knowing and fully understanding that point, I can safely claim to have a strong, valid argument against him.
