Proof of God’s Non-Existence? Let a Jury Decide

While the burden of proof for a god’s existence is on believers, I’ve often thought about what would constitute proof that no supreme being/s exist?

In a court of law, when hard evidence is not available (i.e. deposable eyewitnesses, fingerprints, forensics, DNA, et al) lawyers depend on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is acceptable and often compelling. The prevailing accepted criteria to convince a jury in a civil case is by a “preponderance of evidence”, circumstantial or otherwise.

I propose that there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence to show God/s does/do not exist.

1. Dispelled Supernatural Explanations- the Diminished God:

The scientific age is in its infancy. It is said that more discoveries have been made in the past 300 years than have taken place in the past 5,000 years. The infallibility of the Catholic Church has been all but dispelled as they capitulate to Copernicus’ model, and placidly accept Darwinian Theory. What for millennia the faithful attributed to the supernatural such as the “wrath of God” (i.e. earthquakes, lighting strikes; draught; extreme weather, plague); the “work of Satan” (i.e. deformed births, two headed sheep, plague); “demonic possession/ witches" (i.e. epilepsy, hysteria, catatonic states) have been shown by man’s scientific awakening to be natural, explainable, even reproducible/ repeatable events, & processes.

Similarly, radiologic dating, consistency of fossil species evidence within geologic strata, and other measurements both terrestrial and cosmologic which meet stringent scientific criteria , provide overwhelming evidence of Old Earth and Evolution; rendering Creationism and Young Earth fables just that...unsupportable fables with no scientific basis.

Thus, while the gaps in our knowledge still exist, they are steadily shrinking. Along with the shrinking gaps the “God of the Gaps” has diminished and continues to do so exponentially. I submit, therefore that each and every theist, clergy or layman, living or dead, who has ever acquiesced to the reality of a dispelled pre-scientific, biblically endorsed, theistically held belief (i.e. earth as center of the universe; a firmament; plague as punishment, etc.), is himself a witness to / proof that what theists once attributed to God’s Word or power is fallacy, and that this God’s credibility has diminished commensurate with those discoveries.

If a god was all powerful, all knowing and existing, his prior attributes & credibility could not be diminished by Man’s discovery. QED, God does not exist.

2. No Probable Cause for Belief:

The Bible is the sole document for belief in /support of the God of Abraham and supernatural Jesus. In 3,500 + years since the Old Testament, and 1,800+ years since the New Testament, no new evidence has ever been produced proving supernatural events described therein actually occurred. No corroborating eyewitness statements by disinterested parties, no archeological evidence, no scientific proofs or discoveries that substantiate the source documents.

For almost two millennia there have been numerous documented predictions by theists of the “end of times” / “second coming”. None of these predictions have come true.

Similarly, no new "miracles" have been forthcoming that could not be explained in natural terms. The "age of miracles" it seems has dissappeared with the advent of the scientific age.

If a supreme being existed who genuinely cared about its creations believing in him, common logic infers he would reveal his existence in undeniable and proof positive terms. He would do so without the need for fallible human interpretation, or suppression / suspension of the human ability to reason and logic (which presumably this god bestowed upon them), or dependence on man made excuses for the absence of this God's personal appearance.

In short: The evidence for the supernatural or God should be held to no higher or lower standard than the evidence for any other unseeable mythical being , i.e. werewolf, vampire, fairy, et al. I submit that in the absence of said evidence there is no probable cause to believe in a God/s existence.

Virtually all theists have on their side is "hearsay", which is the least valued of all evidence. So what can we deduce? This: if pure logic and a preponderance of evidence were the sole basis for a ruling, these two arguments alone could stand as overwhelming evidence for proof for no god.

Of course, my premise is based on "a court of law" scenario, where the judge / jury are impartial, and bound by the rule of law to decide by a "preponderance of evidence" irrespective of their personal opinion of the participants, or their own belief system. Unfortunately, given the lack of intellect of jurors, and their inability to overcome their own mental enslavement to religion, I doubt an impartial jury could be found. Certainly not in LA, or among justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito, or Thomas.