Agnosticism is more appropriate than Atheism

All an atheist has to do is prove that god is not necessary for the universe to exist in order to prove he doesn't exist. If you can prove god mathematically wrong, logically wrong, or scientifically un-necessary, he doesn't need to exist. First to be able to do so, we must define god. Without god having a definition, you can not "believe" or "disbelieve" in him because you wouldn't know exactly what you are making claims about. To make it simple, we give god these traits: (a) perfect (b) immutable (c) transcendent (d) nonphysical (e) omniscient (f) omnipresent (g) personal (h) free (i) all-loving (j) all-just (k) all-merciful (1) the creator of the universe All we need to do is prove that these traits contradict one another. Here is an easy one we can prove: ""The Transcendence-vs.-Omnipresence Argument Here the incompatibility is between properties (c) and (f). The argument may be formulated as follows: 1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time). 2. If God exists, then he is omnipresent. 3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space. 4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space. 5. Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4). 6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5). The usual place at which this argument is attacked is premise 3. It is claimed that to transcend space does not entail being totally outside space. A being could be partly inside space and partly outside. Consider the Flatland analogy: a three-dimensional object transcends Flatland, and yet it exists within the Flatland dimensions (as well as outside). So, God could be like that. He exists within space (and, indeed, everywhere in space!) but he also exists outside space, the latter feature being what warrants calling him "transcendent." My only objection here is that the Flatland analogy does not quite make the idea of transcendence intelligible. We understand perfectly well how a three-dimensional object might "transcend" Flatland while still being (partly) within it. However, this is still talking about objects in space. To try to extend the analogy so as to talk about something that is "outside space as well as within it" is unsuccessful. That is something that we are totally unable to comprehend. In the end, the very concept of transcendence that is appealed to here is incoherent. This illustrates the point that defenses against incompatible-properties arguments may very well lead to incoherence or other objections to theism."" - Argument by Theodore M. Drange in Philo Volume 1, Number 2, article "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey" Look up the article for multiple proofs such at this one. Secondly, because it is possible to prove an unrestricted negative (saying there isn't a way is performing just that, an unrestricted negative) then we can say "God does not exist anywhere" and find proof. "Parmenides realized over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. We know that there are no married bachelors, no square circles, and no largest number because these notions are self-contradictory. They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent. To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being-a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm would have it. We know, however, that there is no supreme number . because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 can and cannot be added to it, and that's impossible. Many believe that the notion of a supreme being is just as incoherent as the notion of a supreme number. Theists, of course, will claim that, properly understood, there is no contradiction. What if they're right? What if it's logically possible for the God of traditional theism to exist? Does that mean that one cannot prove that he does not exist? No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them." - Philo So all that is needed is to show that god is inconsistent, illogical, contradictory, or not necessary. I'm sure, as I have pointed out above, there are people who have disproved god. It's just if people are willing to swallow it or not.