Atheists, according to the presented quotations, argue that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God because only the existence of something can be proven, while denying the existence of an object is akin to claiming that one can prove I did not give five rubles.

The Limits of Evidence in the Debate on Faith

Atheists, according to the presented quotations, argue that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of God because only the existence of something can be proven, while denying the existence of an object is akin to claiming that one can prove I did not give five rubles. Therefore, their attempts to refute religious beliefs are based on a critical reassessment of methods of proof, where the lack of evidence supporting God is viewed as a reason for disbelief. It is emphasized here that if their beliefs were truly justified, atheists wouldn’t shy away from experiments with faith; for example, they wouldn’t refuse to undergo a trial by fire, as illustrated in the following excerpt:

"And if the heart is deceitful, a person begins to doubt. Because no proof can be given that God does not exist. One can prove that an object exists, but it is impossible to prove that it does not – you cannot prove that I did not give five rubles. It is possible to prove that I did give, but proving that I did not is impossible; no witnesses can be found for that. Therefore, proving that God does not exist is altogether an impossible task. Faith is demonstrated in another way. Let us take two people: one who believes in God, and another who believes that there is no God; one who believes that Christ is the Son of God, and another who believes that Christ is merely a historical figure. And then, let us light a big bonfire and tell both: let’s go prove our faith in the fire. But no atheist, with the idea that God does not exist, would ever go into the fire, not one." (source: link txt)

Moreover, the aims of atheists are often…