I'm an atheist, though, although in my case that is not according to the broader definition that might encompass religion in general. OK;
format_quote Originally Posted by
asadxyz
Peace;
What is the Proof that Aristotl and Newton existed ??
Can any Atheist prove their existence ?
There is no proof, although as there is considerable evidence that they did and (so far as I am aware) none that they didn't, that seems enough to go on for practical purposes.
You have still to enlighten us as to what the purpose of this thread actually is. I take it from what I quoted the idea is to show either that 'proof' is not necessary to believe in God? No atheist would dispute that for a moment. Indeed it would be stupid to do so from their perspective, as no proof for the existence of God has been provided and yet billions still believe there is a God the fact that 'proof' is not necessary for such belief is self evident.
There is, of course, no proof that God does not exist any more than there is evidence that He does. If you scan through posts from the atheists here you will see that as a common theme - none have ever claimed to provide a (sound) proof God does not exist. Now we have have the meanings of the words sorted out, what it comes down to is
evidence. There is evidence both that God exists and that He doesn't and whether you 'believe' or not depends on which case you believe the strongest. Agnostics are those who haven't made their mind up.. a reasonable enough position.
Unfortunately, in this particular context, which evidence is found convincing is pretty much coloured by the position you already have. Hence evidence a believer may find convincing an atheist might find totally unconvincing , and the reverse is also true. So ultimately such debate is pretty futile, if not actually counter-productive. Again and again we see 'proof' that God must exist that is totally convincing to those who already believe he does and yet is (frequently) laughable to those who do not. And, again, vice versa.