Nope.

i think the existence of them disproves it..

The annoying thing about God is that his very nature makes it so that you cannot prove or disprove his existence.

No more than any non-atheist can prove the existence of God.

None of them has yet.

It would depends how you would define God.

Noone can Disprove anything. You can prove things but you can never disprove anything. I believe in God but I have no proof that would be good enough for an atheist.

That depends on how you define god and if that definition stays the same over time. It seems to me that god has been receding into the gaps. He's harder and harder to find with each passing year.

The onus of proof is always on the person making the assertion of existence of fact. No one can offer proof that something is not. What is not leaves no evidence of itself. That is why our justice system demands assumption of innocence until proof of guilt is provided.

Look up Russell's Teapot.

No more than you can disprove the existence of fairies and leprechauns

He can to himself and to some people.

In the same way that God can disprove the existence of Atheists.

no he cant, no one can prove he is there and no one can prove he is not there.

I don't think anybody will ever prove if there is a God. This debate will go on until the end of time.

i dont think you can prove or disprove if there is a God but there is a lot of proof that suggests there may not be a god

nope. They can't disprove leprechauns, unicorns, big foot, fairies or any other mythical creature either , but the burden of proof is not on them. I could make up a god right now and nobody could prove it didn't exist.

I don't see how they can, I guess thats why they call it faith.

Atheists can do anything

no more than you can PROVE the existence of God. its 50/50 both ways.

They can try

As readily as a Christian can prove the existance. +5

The onus is not on the Atheist. It's on the Theist. And no one can prove the existence of god.

No, we will all find out when we die. No side has the ability now. It's a battle between faith and ego.

Atheists can not prove or disaprove anything no matter what they claim. Most of them just follow their own desires and self opinions. Real scientists admit that this well-organized universe must have a Creator, it did not came to existence by accidence as atheists want to believe. According to the famous physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Albert Einstein, “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” Now, let me borrow and quote here for you this conversation between an atheist (Wilson) and a believer (Chirri) about the same point "existence of matter and the Creator (God)": -Wilson (atheist): But why should a person consider the existence of the material world as evidence of the existence of the creator of matter? Is it not probable that matter existed without a creator? Suppose someone views that matter or energy is infinitely old, and that it never was preceded by non-existence. Would you be able to disprove his views? -Chirri (believer): It is very hard to accept the idea that matter is infinitely old. When one says that matter or energy is infinitely old, one assumes that the material out of which the billions of stars were built, existed simultaneously. When we are aware that each star contains billions of tons of materials, and that the balance of the raw material is much more than the material which is contained in the stars and planets, we realize the improbability of such an idea. We cannot conceive that all these quantities of materials existed at once and that nothing of it was preceded by non-existence. To say that only a portion of the material is infinitely old, and that the other portions came to existence at a later stage, is to admit the need of a creator, because the inanimate material does not increase by self-reproduction. Only living beings are capable of multiplying by self-reproduction. To allow any gradual increase in the material quantity is to admit the need of a creator. -Wilson: I may agree with you that matter and energy must have been preceded by non-existence. But this is not very obvious to every human being. Does the teaching of Islam suggest the consideration of anything in the nature that was undoubtedly preceded by non-existence? -Chirri: Yes, there is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life. Our scientists state that earth was too hot (and some of them say it was too cold) for any kind of life to exist on it. It took the earth millions of years to become a suitable place for life. Life, therefore, is, undoubtedly, a newborn. Science, however, tells us that life does not originate from non-living being. Pasteur's experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion. The earth, along with its atmosphere, at the time of its formation was sterile and unproductive. Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process. It must have been done miraculously. This means that the existence of life on this planet is a shining evidence on the existence of an Intelligent, Supernatural Designer.

Can a Christian Disprove the Existence of other Religion's Gods?

Proving a negative is a logical impossibility. You can never know EVERYTHING in the universe, therefore you can never know for sure that there isn't One. Science is simply not equipped to prove or disprove a living Person. And God is a person, not a phenomenon.

That's not possible. What is a bigger question is, can they prove any evidence at all to support their theory that the universe came into existence randomly and undirected.

Maybe to their very selves, but never to me.

No, they cannot.

It's impossible. I'm still waiting for this "miracle". Bring it.

That depends on how you define god. It is possible to disprove the more specific you get. Not that the burden of proof rests on atheists. It rests on the person making the claim. I don't make any claim; I just don't believe the claim that god exists.

Look up "Russell's Teapot".

NO. they never can and they never will. God Himself gave us logic to figure that out. Atheists have willingly given themselves over to a reprobate mind, that's why they don't believe. Everyone reading this will know for certain 100 years from now.

no and a theist can't prove God's existance beyond any shadow of doubt if either argument was presented before criminal court, neither would be valid if it were civil court, both would have to be given merit WE WILL ALL FIND OUT WHEN WE DIE THIS IS AN OVERDONE Q ON AB TO THE NHT DEGREE give it the f**k up already. there are real question on AB from ppl who really need help getting lost in all this trolling!!

It's a logical impossibility for anyone to disprove the existance of anything. I'm still waiting for the proof that god does exist, however.

Absolutely not. All Gods exist.

You cannot disprove or prove a negative. I cannot prove that dragons don't exist by not showing you one.

Random evolutionary process has been shown false. Pasteur etc...

It's easier than disproving that he can fly, because he doesn't have to flap his arms like an idiot.

nope

An Atheist can no more disprove God than a Christian could prove him. It's all based on faith or doubt.

No. I'm an atheist and a scientist too. As such I know that it is not really possible to disprove the unprovable! But I certainly see no evidence for a god.

An atheist can show that a God is such an unlikely thing that it is pretty certain it doesn't exist, but it's impossible to prove that something does not exist.

No more than a believer can prove the existence. It's not something that can be proven or disproven.

What ignorant answers. Here's the correct answer: yes. But it takes education and years to see it.

Nope. And a theist cannot prove the existence of god. It's the responsibility of the theist to give proof of his/ her claim.

They dont need to. The the ones claiming something exists need to provide the proof and they can't.

Specific gods can be refuted, but a negative cannot be logically disproved. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to his nephew told the lad that critically reading the Bible shows God does not exist. A deity who created the universe could not be so pathetically ignorant about it as the Bible is. and a wise deity would not have so many blatant contradictions in writings he inspired. The Bible shows critical, logical, objective humans that extremely ignorant barbarians wrote some quite poor fiction about a deity some of them invented.

No but that's why most atheists are agnostic rather than gnostic.

First, someone with proper authority would have to define what God is. Then, if that concept was in any way falsifiable, a test could be performed. But honestly, none of those things will ever happen, because God is defined by different people using different vague terminology specifically so that the concept itself cannot be made clear. Also, all of the "do not test God" rhetoric from several different faiths makes it clear that any endeavour to try to prove or disprove anything upon which a religion is built is specifically called out and severely punished, so that no one will question these religions.