Which god?

To prove that he doesn't exist, you have to demonstrate that everything but him exists.

...and, to the list of leprechauns, Santa, and the Easter Bunny, we can add the RRS Official Super Friends Pantheon:

 

Assorted creators: the Invisible Pink Unicorn; Russel's Teapot; the Flying Spaghetti Monster; Rufus, the Lactose Intolerant Teddy Bear; the Almighty Purple Snarfwidget; He/She/It/They-Who-May-Or-May-Not-Be-Kelhain; the Great Gawkersnot In The Sky; the Ooga Booga Monster; and Raptor Jesus.  (N.B.: Ordinarily, Jake, Joe Pesci, and Google likewise make this list...but all of them are real, which is why I left them off, this time out.  Obviously, we have a little too much time on our hands, here.)

 

Creatures of unutterable evil (every deity has to have opposition, right?): Elsie, the Borden Milk Cow; the Purple Oyster of Doom, and Stephen Colbert (but Stephen is only evil to the various bear gods & prophets; he's also real.)

 

Proceed with the analogy of your choice.  Do not feel at all constrained by this list.

 

Conor

Prophets and Revered Ones: Billy, the Nesquick Bunny and Prophet of Rufus; the Bible Bear; and the Sudanese Teddy Bear Named Mohammed.

Because of the description and attributes give to god and what he has done which supposedly proves he is real, are not true, if those claims of his feats are untrue (created the world in 6 days, but really it took 10 billion years after the universe formed before the earth formed) then the claims of the truth are false as well, so does for his attributes etc, etc, etc. The most common is look around you, what created all of this. To which you can then show how rocks are formed, thunder occurs, how planets are formed, same goes for the sun, etc, etc, etc, which again proves that the christian god is false. However you cannot directly disprove god by saying god doesn't exist, you can simply just prove his attributes, his feats and his description is false.

YOU MAKE A POINT,  THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

No-one can prove that the magical invisible fairies, that live at the center of the earth, who are responsible for the warp in space time that creates the earth's gravitational pull, aren't real. And that's why they absolutely must exist!! Look at the evidence! Gravity, people!! Why won't anyone listen to me!!

Oh yeah? And what about the planets that don't have any life? How do they get gravity without people to have nightmares?

Each planet has it's own magical invisible gravity fairies living at the center of them! It's logic, people!

Why at the center? Common, smaller objects has their gravity too. I think there are small, invisible flying fairies around who somehow fly away from the center, but it somehow makes other objects to be attracted to them, not repelled. I think the fairies are nowadays called gravitons. When they're not invisible at the moment, they look similarly like the fairies with a jar of glue, called gluons, just without that glue, and with wings, so they can fly, while gluons must stay at the centre of atoms.
Unfortunately, I'm unable to provide any evidence for their existence. They're invisible, after all. Only the High Priests can. So if you want to see an evidence, bring a pot.

 

 

Of course, that's a parody. I'm just teasing a little I'm trying to be a bit less conformistic, to put it mildly. 
(it's interesting, every time one my teacher was trying to tease students' thinking that way, I thought that's good for a start, but still not controversial enough )
There is a great wisdom in Clarke's three laws. For example, the third law:
Clarke said, that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I said, that both technology and magic may be so advanced, that they're essentially one and the same thing in their truly understood basis. (controversial, I know)
Some people may have an impression, that a scientific jargon may be so advanced and abstract, that it can't be distinguished from a superstition, mythology, and mumbo-jumbo. Just remember, I replaced the graviton with a fairy, and where's the difference for a normal person?

What I want, is to achieve an union between the opposites. There is a big heap of locks in the East, and a big heap of keys in the West. They're useful for many things, like for sitting upon, or for scratching on a back, but their primary and most important purpose is to open each other. This union will erase the currently present drawbacks. The lazy, predetermined oriental mind, and empty, destructive vanity of western materialistic pursuit.
There are two archetypes of human mind, lower, specific mind, and higher, abstract mind. (surprisingly, 'abstract' mathemathic calculations and concepts belongs to specific mind) Without each other, the specific mind lacks a purpose, and  the abstract mind lacks a realization in the specific world.
Spiritual stuff is so hard to understand for rational people, because it's simply too abstract. It requires to use this abstract mind people in the West doesn't usually need. But to understand it with an abstract mind is one problem, and to be able to say it in words meaningful for a rational mind, it's another problem.

Rationality is an advanced achievement, but the possibilities of improvement are infinite, and this way goes through a syntesis, an unity with other aspects of the world.
The rational mind divides and clouds things by their thought forms. We may see only what our visible spectrum allows us, but we don't see even that, we look at a thought form in our mind, representing a real object. We see only what we think about the object. And we call that rational. Well, that's certainly a powerful tool (thanks Von Neumann), and a basis of thinking (this is why it's called "lower mind", it's a basis), but it's just a tool. This kind of rational mind is a good servant, but a bad master. When it's a master over people, it's destructive. I want people to have a good lower mind, but to be also a masters over it, by using their higher, abstract mind too. I see here some great specific minds, maybe even overgrown a bit, refusing the abstract mind they don't have anyway. It reminds me about the tale of the fox and unreachable grapes.

I'm trying to show you a mirror, to give you an impression of the abstract mind, rather than the specific mind. I have it too, I just don't show it here so much, because it would be like carrying a proverbial wood into a forest. My rational mind is not great but sufficient, one my hobby is a programming (or rather scripting) of computer games and I had solved a few of hard problems over the years. So yes, I have the rational mind, I just use it as a tool when I think I should. Maybe not often enough, but nobody's perfect

Glad you agree.

 

Now, a pertinent question I feel the need to ask: What do the letters on your shirt say?

You look sorta like kate bush.

From Wikipedia: Kate Bush (born 30 July 1958) is an English singer, songwriter, musician, and record producer. Her eclectic musical style and idiosyncratic lyrics have made her one of England's most successful solo female performers of the past 30 years. Bush was signed by EMI at the age of 16 after being recommended by Pink Floyd's David Gilmour. In 1978, aged 19, she topped the UK charts for four weeks with her debut song "Wuthering Heights", becoming the first woman to have a UK number one with a self-written song.

Must be a big SlipKnot fan as well then, heh? I was hoping Lamb of God would've been at the Mayhem Festival, but maybe next year.