It cannot proved nor disproved. But I know theology has too many unresolved problems. The ancient Greek philosopher, Epicurus, points this out with his question:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

It really depends on one's definition of "God," but if we take the popular version — all loving, all knowing, all powerful — there's no reasonable explanation for suffering in the world. If God exists, God is either unable or unwilling to eliminate suffering (violating either omnipotence or a loving nature). Even if we talk about free will and a fall of humanity that allows suffering to exist, we're still stuck with a situation in which God was unaware of the consequences of its creation, didn't care to make its creation better, or was unable to make a perfect creation.

This is my theory...There are over four thousand religions in the world. Wouldn't there only be one? Would there be hate, disease, and war? If he can communicate with a profit, couldn't he communicate with all? Wouldn't there be repercussions for atrocities committed in his name? The bible, written by men to serve men of business is full of contradictions as well as self-serving ideals. The treatment and double standards of women and children and the subjugation of anyone considered of less value.

Because we don't understand all facets of our existence many want to personalize a deity to explain that which science has yet to describe. I am content in my limited ignorance and refuse to appoint a deity for explanations preferring to wait for science.

Following that line of thought, what is the proof there is no wombat orbiting Jupiter? You can't can you? So there must be one!

Not to be bitter but being a goody two shoes and then getting type 1 diabetes at age 9 was a pretty convincing argument.

what god ?

You cannot prove a negative. All one can say, is that there is no proof that a god exists.

Start with statistics. If you measured every conceivable outcome to every conceivable problem, you would find them to be so random and problematic as far as predicting any pre-destined outcome, that it would be obvious that there can be no possible god-variable - whether someone believes and prays or not, has no bearing on the equations. The proof is in what is NOT there.

I like TSJames's answer - we don't need to search for proof of god in our lives, that's what's theists do and make it up as they go along. The question needs to be asked in the positive, what proof is there that there is a god in our lives - none.

What sensory input or instrumentation to refine/intensify the senses do you or anyone have that proves there IS a god? The lack of that is the proof that there is NOT one.
BTW my argument would NOT hold up in an argument of logic. It is, however, the closest thing to proof of non-existence we have. Since there is no proof of existence beside anecdotal evidence, I am satisfied that there is NO god. Have a nice day.

Same as the proof that there are no unicorns - i.e. no proof needed.

the beautiful dream of god does not solve the miseries or tragedies around the world or in our life.

My individual proof is that I was once a true believer; but I did have questions. When I set out on my journey to learn why I believed what I did, I prayed to the god I believed in--even begged this god--to not let me get led astray. I did not set out to become an atheist. The fact that I became an atheist and have no "god hole," whatsoever, is proof to me that, if there is a creator god being of some sort, it does not know or care what I believe; or, there is no god being. And, as there is no evidence for such a being-- and the universe behaves as it would without one--I see no reason to believe that one exists.

You want proof, I'm right here.

Where is the proof or better yet the evidence that their is? I understand I'm answering a question with a question here. That however does not negate the fact that theirs no proof or evidence either way of his/her/it's existence in our lives. So any argument is based totally on your own set of beliefs. Science hasn't proven that their isn't and Religion hasn't proven their is.

There isn’t one. In order to disprove it one must demonstrate gods absence from every object and event in the universe from the beginning to the end of time and beyond, an impossible feat. The burden of proof therefore rests with the theists. It is sufficient to prove the influence of god in just one event or object. Since the theists cannot do that we conclude there is nothing out there.

An exercise in logic.
Consider the following:
If we assume that life is too complex to exist without having been designed and brought into existence by an intelligent creator;
then we must assume that that creator, being at least as, if not more complex than we, must also have been designed and brought into existence by a creator of its own.
Therefore, the creationist model begins with infinite complexity, which must at some point have spontaneously come into existence, which then proceeds to create lesser forms in a process of devolution, from the divine to the mundane.

The usual rebuttal to the above is the concept of the infinite, which states that the creator did not itself need to be created because it has always existed. In other words the creator has neither beginning nor end and is therefore infinite.
The flaw in this argument is simple, it requires one to accept the concept that anything complex must be designed and created, because nothing complex can exist without first being designed and then created, EXCEPT for the single most complex thing or entity in existence, which didn't even need to come into existence because that entity has always existed and therefore has no beginning.

Put simply, the creationist model requires one to accept it's internal logic right up until the point where that logic breaks down completely, at which point it requires you to entirely ignore the flaw in the logic by blindly accepting an irrational concept for which the only evidence is the assumption that;
A) the creator must exist and
B) if the creator must exist, and there is no rational explanation as to how that creator came into existence, there must, by default, be an irrational explanation for its existence.

The logic of the creationist is therefore both flawed and circular.

In fairness, this is less of a problem for polytheistic religions than it is for monotheistic religions because polytheistic religions tend to include some explanation as to where their deities come from in their creation myths, whereas in monotheistic religions, the admission that the ONE AND ONLY EVER GOD came from anywhere, tends to be viewed as some form of admission that the ONE GOD may not be as alone up there as the religion assumes. As this brings up to question the basic and central tenants of the faith, it is usually rejected out of hand.
However, even when a creation myth includes a story explaining the origins of the assumed deity or deities, one is still left with the, rather good question; if a god isn't too complex to bring into existence without an intelligent creator, why is a simple single cell organism?

It's a good question because when you understand the evolutionary pathways and processes, one must inevitably accept that if even the simplest single cell organism can come into existence without having been designed by an intelligent creator, that creator becomes superfluous, since no external creator is required to explain evolution.

Of course, if one does not understand evolution and the evidence and science which confirm it, one could be forgiven for accepting an irrational explanation of how we come to be. After all, in the absence of a rational and intelligent understanding of the evidence, there is no good reason for assuming that the scientific model is reasonable, and considering that biblical accounts of creation were written by, and for, scientifically illiterate people, who accepted the notion of the supernatural as being a reasonable go to answer for anything they didn't understand, it should hardly be surprising to learn that the scientifically illiterate of today should cling to the old superstitions.

Which brings me to the question, why do some scientifically literate people choose to accept the religious model of creation over the scientific model? Assuming that such individuals grasp all of the concepts discussed thus far, and baring in mind no one has yet to answer the question of the origin of god satisfactorily, we are bound to ask if such individuals are being swayed in their judgment by some other factor or factors. In other words, does religion offer something so desirable that it is capable of encouraging even those who you might expect to, so to speak, know better, to abandon logic in favor of faith?

The answer, obviously is yes, or else it wouldn't happen. In truth it is a combination of being taught religion in an unquestioning manor from an early age, combined with the one thing religion offers which science does not, an afterlife in which the self persists. The extinction of the self is for some, perhaps many, a frightening concept, and religion offers an out, whether you call it Hades, Heaven, Valhalla or whatsoever. Science offers no such out. Despite this, the overwhelming majority of scientifically literate people do not reject the scientific model in favor of creationism.

Additionally, and perhaps crucially, religion is often associated with a hierarchical social structure in which some individuals gain significant political power by laying claim to speaking on behalf of god almighty, effectively requiring adherents to desist in any form of reasoned debate over the issue in question, as the highest possible authority has been invoked. From slavery to genocide and beyond, some of histories greatest atrocities have been justified by such means, and the allure of such power is a powerful incentive to some.

I conclude this thesis with a relevant deduction based upon the proceeding concepts discussed thus far. Specifically, if god does not exist, and religion is no more than formalised superstition, then the claims of politicians, clerics and other assorted believer's, who from time to time make claims about how they have had communication with god in some form, divine inspiration for example, it must be understood that such claims, by definition, can not be more real than the individual (god) with whom the communication is being made with.

Therefore, if god does not exist, all communication from god must by definition be the product of the imagination, absent of any divine intervention, possibly for the purpose of some form of political and/or social control. Alternatively it could be a psychological aberration, wherein the individual really does believes the communication to be genuine, either as a result of mental illness or an excess of wishful thinking. Either way however, in the absence of any actual god, statements regarding what 'god' wants is inevitably a reflection not of what god wants, but rather what the individual claiming to speak for god wants.

It is of course important to remember that truth and reality do not alter on the basis of belief. Providing the believer gains some personal psychological benefit, yet does not use their personal beliefs as justification for doing harm to others, the mere fact that their beliefs run contrary to logic is fine. However, until or unless the day comes when religion can satisfactorily answer the question, where did god come from?, logic is not on the side of people of faith.

If one studies every single God recorded in literature, then its going to do a few things:

1. Represent a utilitarian view of the world. (Agriculture, alcohol, metalwork, war, etc)
2. Represent a sophistry. (justify some human's words with a God authority)
3. Semantically refer to universalism. (creator of everything, root cause of the present moment.)

In all three cases one must ask who benefits from these traits? The person who is believing something chooses to use analogies to describe the whole situation. As a person who is dealing with a lot in life, we need something to describe that bigger part of the self in our life. And that is often called universalism. THe religions use that concept to mean God, so basically everything said in the name of that God will seem like a greater self said it. Its a psychological manipulation.

If you find yourself, then all these ideas disappear... from reality. its only when we don't look for ourself we just become desperate for some convenient psychological device. But once we look at our self the very idea of a thing like God is silly. Because if God were really there all the time, like a breathing air, then we would not even need to name it. It would just be there... likely we would not even need or care to know..as its only when we are not looking for ourself we need something to explain ourself.

All the suffering and struggle in life

With few exceptions you cannot prove a negative. That's why someone is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the positive assertion.

You cannot prove that there are no unicorns.

well to start with the bible is full of contridictions an had very nasty views on the value of life.

science proves the earth is more than 6 thousand years old and that life began as bacteria and not adam and eve.

the bible and message of god is full of hate. i.e jerrico.

no one has heard from any gods for thousands of years.

gods were a tool by peoples to explain the unknown. we now have more understanding of life because we are asking the right questions and geting actual proof of who we are and where we come from that negates the need for creationism.

religion allows people to do nothing but be passive.

What's the proof there is......right none!