Presented more for the comments than the initial arguments, here is another importune attempt to disprove the existence of a certain deity (not an argument endorsed by this blog): Logically disproving the Christian God.
There is a general rule in logic which says that you cannot prove a negative. Example… So if I say that there are extraterrestrial parrots living on Mars, you know it’s stupid, ridiculous (and I’m either delusional or lying my ass off) but you can’t prove it isn’t true. But there is a reason why this is a rule rather than a law…
If I say that there are parrots living on Mars and I know this because they broadcast a radio show on a certain frequency, THAT can be checked.
I can say that you still haven’t proved that the Martian parrots don’t exist but that’s an irrelevant argument now; my only evidence supporting their existence has been shot down, so I have nothing; there isn’t a single reason to believe me.
Likewise, while you can’t prove that some vague, generic non-defined GOD really doesn’t exist, you can certainly test claims that are more specific.
There are a couple of typical tests in this area; the Parsimony test looks at the claim (in Christianity) that God has the characteristics of being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. We then look at real life and discover, hey, you know what? At least one of those things can’t be true, otherwise life on earth would be very different from the reality in which we live.
The other way – which is the approach used in this article – is to look at the Bible, which is supposedly THE evidence for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god, and see how it stacks up to its own claims.
The beauty of the article cited here is not so much in the arguments but rather in the response of religionists in the comments section: The resistance to logic is priceless. Such is the fallibility of human nature, though; we have a great deal of trouble seeing the flaws in our own preconceptions.
Instead of trying to use blunt-force logic, I always suggest to people that you turn arguments around: If you say that “you can’t prove God doesn’t exist” and you think that this is a devastatingly effective argument – then saying that “the earth is 4.5 billion years old and you can’t prove it isn’t true” must be equally effective: They rely on the same logic.
Yes, I know you still won’t get anywhere; religionists by nature are only interested in arguments that support their beliefs. They aren’t really searching for truth. I know this with absolute certainty because as an ex-religionist I’ve already learned that there is no truth behind the tales of religion (ANY religion) and I know that the information that led to discovering my own error is out there and available to all. Those who think otherwise simply don’t want to find out what is real and what isn’t.
But again, that’s just part of human nature. Like it or not, we all have to live with it.