Those who call themselves Rationalists say they disprove God by a mere statement that God does not Exist.
They declare that They can not perceive Him, so He does not Exist
This often is the One Liner Argument.
Other than this their arguments are in the form of rebuttal and abuse and ridicule of those who say God exists.
Let me examine how constructive the arguments are for disproving God.
Let us begin at the Philosophical Level.
One can not see God, hear Him feel Him, so He does not exist.
This argument belongs to Perception as a means of Knowledge.
If one were to accept this yardstick of one experiencing every thing by oneself, then one can not prove anything.
One can not prove he will die for he has not experienced Death.
One can not prove Hunger, Sex for One does not see hear these.
Rather one feels.
Feelings by themselves are not perceivable.
They are known by their external manifestations, like being Happy, Sad.
Feelings are inferred.
Again senses themselves are not infallible.
Renes Descartes , in his masterly analysis, quotes the experience of senses thus.
You keep your hands in cold water for five minutes, then dip them in Hot water,
The warmth takes longer to become effective when compared to normal circumstances.
One can do this the other way, keep them in warm water and dip later in cold water.
Here, what exactly the senses convey and which one is correct?
If one were to say I am aware that I dipped my hands in hot/cold water earlier,therefore I am able to distinguish the error of my understanding her.
The fact that you understand that there was an error, means the senses do commit errors .
Are the perceptions of things the same for every one for a particular object?
For that matter, are we,or our senses consistent in conveying the information to us?
How does a Blind Man prove there is Light?
If you admit the has deficiency. one can also say we also have deficiencies in perceiving things for which our senses are not equipped.
Do we Perceive Atoms?
Do we see air?
The earlier we do believe in, because Science tell us so.
In the latter, we feel air.
So we proceed to the next instrument of Knowledge, perception being inadequate.
(for more on Perception, read my post on Perception under Indian Philosophy,Hinduism)
Atheists dismiss the Testimony as being not proven.
They are not proved or authentic.
One does not know his Great Grand Father.
We do believe he lived.
Because our Fathers have told us.
Similarly one has to believe in Testimony unless proved otherwise by personal experience , not by Logic alone for Logic is faulty.I shall discuss it here later)
What is the authenticity we are talking about?
Support by other Books?
If we can not believe the earlier ones, why should we believe in the latter?
How does one learn a Language?
Through others, Testimony.
Why do we not deny Language?
Because we feel it is essential
Who gave you names for things and why should they be correct .
If you deny Testimony as a source of Knowledge, you should deny tit altogether.
Not in bits and pieces as it suits you.
Inference is built on Logic.
What is Logic built on?
Mind, which you have not seen or can perceive.
This is Logical.
If one were to say that the Mind is perceived because of its functions or effects, then one should also believe in God as the primary Cause.
In Logic there are two vital elements,
One is induction and another is Deduction.
Induction is the process by which you come to a general statement(Genus).
The next is Deduction, which proceeds by linking the Genus to individual case.
Let us see an example.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is Man.
Therefore He is Mortal.
The General Statement that All Men are Mortal does not conform to Logic.
We have not checked all the things that were born, are born or would be born and verified that once born they are certain to die.
This is called the Inductive Leap.
On what basis in this allowed?
Logic again depends on the Law of Uniformity of Nature.
Law of Uniformity can not be proved for the same reason as in the Syllogism stated above.
There is no guarantee that The Gravitational Force will be there to-morrow.
Law of Causality is again built on The Law of Uniformity of Nature.
Moreover, One Cause may produce more than one result and one result may be due to many Causes.
How does one link a particular Cause and Effect?
I shall be writing on this from the Indian Philosophical point of view, Parinama Vada and Vivarta Vada later as it is a complicated topic.
I shall be dealing with the other instruments of Knowledge like Intuition in the future, along with rebuttal for Atheists 50 Arguments point by point.