How I know there is no God

[DoubtingThomas29]

I feel that we can know apostori there is no God, all though we can't rule him out all together. I feel that a person can't believe religion is man mad and still believe there is a God. There maybe a remote chance that there is a creator, but really a God would have to be one we could have a personal relationship with and he would have to be all loving and all powerful, which obviously isn't the case when you look at the evidence.

This is how I know there is no God, I look at all the religions that have ever existed, and I know all those religions were just stories that people were making up. I don't see how christianity isn't just a different story, given the fact we can't prove God exists and therefore we can't prove any of Jesus miracles actually happened. So God and the Leprchan fall into the same category, we can't prove Leprchans exist and we can't prove God exist, so there you go the two are one in the same, just about. There is not much difference between the two.

So, if we know Mohammed din't listen to an angle in a cave, and we also know that christianity was an oppressed cult for over two hundred years, which does mean we have no good reason to believe Jesus came back from the dead. Then there is half of the believing world right there rejected, the other half pretty much is just made up too, in my opinion.

So there you go if you know religion is man made, then you know God does not exist, the one follows the other.
We know this apostori by looking at religious claims and all those religions and denominations that are out there.

So what are your thoughts?

I am just basically looking for a philosophical debate where we can agree to disagree, but still have a little fun performing mental exercises about how do we know things, either apostori or apriori about the claim of the existance of God, and how do we know different things too. So if you want to jump in and tell me why you don't believe Islam, or why you don't believe Hinduism then we could talk about that too. The debate should be fun for everybody, try not to get offended. Religious beliefes should be just an opinion pretty much.

If someone wanted to believe their dog made the universe, what is wrong with that? Nothing not a thing, obviously we couldn't take him seriously the way we have to with people who are hindu or muslim, but still it is okay to have weird belief like that. If you wanted to think a Leperchan made the universe and he lives in the woods somewhere, there is nothing wrong with that. It is weird, but there is nothing wrong with it.

So what are your thoughts on all this?

 

[Teufelhund]

I'm pretty sure Mohammed didn't speak to an angle in cave, although the A-rabs did do a significant amount of geometry. What's wrong with Leprechauns why do you doubt them? Arguing against something just because it cannot be fully proven is a fundamentalist religious tactic as well, see evolution. I argue that neither can you fully disprove it. I have proven it to my satisfaction that how I know there is a God.

 

[Im_A]

I'm pretty sure Mohammed didn't speak to an angle in cave, although the A-rabs did do a significant amount of geometry. What's wrong with Leprechauns why do you doubt them? Arguing against something just because it cannot be fully proven is a fundamentalist religious tactic as well, see evolution. I argue that neither can you fully disprove it. I have proven it to my satisfaction that how I know there is a God.

with what you said here and btw, i'm not saying there is no god but therein lies the problem. the only proof is personal conviction/personal satisfaction. the rest is faith/theory of deduction.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I'm a Christian and not a Muslim because I was raised Christian, not Muslim and I have no complaints. I still follow Christianity because there is some truth in everything, especially a religion such as Christianity I think...so it has become my hobby to sift through what is given to me and to find the truth, and when I'm done, perhaps I will find God.

 

[NavyGuy7]

You can't disprove God, because whaddya know? Who put us here? The world, nay, the universe was made just so, in a specifically planned manner. How else is it we are the only planet with life on it in our solar system? Besides...were you there when Jesus rose from the dead? How do you know he didn't? And my side of the "reverse" question you might ask is because I believe it on faith.

And yes, religion is man-made. But Christianity should not be a religion, as the core of it is a relationship with God and Jesus Christ. There's really no need for all the pomp and circumstance of Catholicism, and whatnot. No need even for the specific Church day to be Sunday. That's tradition and man-made doctrine.

Besides... stories in the Old Testament are true. The Naked Archaeologist proved a few of them. That show is awesome.

 

[Im_A]

You can't disprove God, because whaddya know? Who put us here? The world, nay, the universe was made just so, in a specifically planned manner. How else is it we are the only planet with life on it in our solar system? Besides...were you there when Jesus rose from the dead? How do you know he didn't? And my side of the "reverse" question you might ask is because I believe it on faith.

on the flip side of the coin, just because the universe is complicated and only one life that we know of yet that sustains life, that doesn't mean that God did create or that God didn't create. theory of deduction is not scientific fact...just a reason to have faith..same goes with the resurrection.

 

[Im_A]

And yes, religion is man-made. But Christianity should not be a religion, as the core of it is a relationship with God and Jesus Christ. There's really no need for all the pomp and circumstance of Catholicism, and whatnot. No need even for the specific Church day to be Sunday. That's tradition and man-made doctrine.

Besides... stories in the Old Testament are true. The Naked Archaeologist proved a few of them. That show is awesome.

Christianity is man made as well. it is a religion no matter how much you don't like the idea. using your argument for the reason that Christianity should not be a religion, applies to all the other religions. without the ancient churches...Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy you wouldn't have Christianity at all.

what stories did the Naked Archaelogist prove? can you give a link to back this up please?

 

[elcapitan]

You can't disprove God, because whaddya know? Who put us here? The world, nay, the universe was made just so, in a specifically planned manner. How else is it we are the only planet with life on it in our solar system?

Just because something is extremely unlikely to happen doesn't mean it was designed to happen that way. Even though your chances of winning the lottery are 1 in several hundred million, that does not mean that someone cheated on the lottery by rigging it.

In the same way, just because it's unlikely that the universe would turn out the way it did does not mean it was designed. If it didn't turn out this way, we simply wouldn't exist to observe it.

Besides...were you there when Jesus rose from the dead? How do you know he didn't? And my side of the "reverse" question you might ask is because I believe it on faith.

And there is the problem with faith. Why do you have faith that Jesus rose from the dead? Why don't you have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If it really is just faith, then by definition there not a rational basis for it.

And yes, religion is man-made. But Christianity should not be a religion, as the core of it is a relationship with God and Jesus Christ.

It's hard to have a relationship with someone who doesn't talk to you, especially if he doesn't exist. Christianity is a religion and is just as man-made as the others.

There's really no need for all the pomp and circumstance of Catholicism, and whatnot. No need even for the specific Church day to be Sunday. That's tradition and man-made doctrine.

ok.

Besides... stories in the Old Testament are true. The Naked Archaeologist proved a few of them. That show is awesome.

England exists, but that doesn't mean that the events of the Harry Potter books actually happened. In the same manner, just because a few stories from the Old Testament are true does not mean that God exists or that the whole of the Old Testament is true.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

Speaking of the Old Testament, remember the story about Noah's Ark? Well we can prove that that story is a fairy tale, just by looking st the fact there are trillions of species of insects on the planet and to hve two of every kind of insect on a boat is simply impossible.

Therefore Noah's Ark is a made up story.

QED

This does in fact mean, we cannot read the fantastic stories of the bible and just believe them seriously, because there is at least one story that is completely false.

Also the story about the Sun stopping in te sky, that could not happen either without jolting the Earth and killing everybody. The story about that lady that looked back at a city to see it go down in flames, the bible says she turned into a pillar of salt, but tha is impossible because matter cannot be created or destroyed and also of E=mC^2, her atoms had to go somewhere, they just couldn't turn into NaCl, Sodium Chloride.

Then in the New Testament there is more stories that are hard to believe, look at the evidence. Look at the fact that Christianity was an oppressed cult for hundreds of years before Emperor Constatine decided to convert the Empire to christianity.

There is tons of evidence that the christia story is another made up religion by men. The bible is written by men, not God.

If God does not exist, then there is in fact a absence of evidence, which is what we have, our world only makes sense we assume God is imaginary, when you look at the Hindu Religion, the Muslim religion and the Christian religion you are looking at a collection of stories that about four billion people adhere to, and they are all right about the other person's religion. Religion is man made, there is no God, and we are merly sophisticated animals wandering the planet, some wondering who made the Earth, and still others wondering what made the Earth.

It wasn't a who that made you and me, it was a what that made us, that what is the natural process called evolution.

Think about it.

 

[0n3]

And I suppose Evolution is all the more probable, explainable, and likely to have happened than the miracles found in the Bible? If God had to fit within His creation and follow the laws of nature that really wouldn't say anything about Him would it? That's why miracles are called super-natural. How do you explain away healings that happen to people today that can't be explained medically and things like that?

 

[Im_A]

And I suppose Evolution is all the more probable, explainable, and likely to have happened than the miracles found in the Bible? If God had to fit within His creation and follow the laws of nature that really wouldn't say anything about Him would it? That's why miracles are called super-natural. How do you explain away healings that happen to people today that can't be explained medically and things like that?

well one thing i have noticed is, science does admit that unexplainable things do occur. but is that enough "proof" to say that God exists? i personally wouldn't use that as proof.

what would that say about God? well i'm assuming that with the faith that i have that God exists, that God created the law of nature. so with evolution, it would just show how God created.

my question is, what makes more logical sense?

we evolved or, man got created from dirt and woman got created from a rib of that man?

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

So there you go if you know religion is man made, then you know God does not exist, the one follows the other.

I am not quite certain of that. Although it would require some tweaking of the definition of God, I believe that science will eventually find all the answers, and that perhaps on some scale even smaller than quantum things are connected, and there is something that connects us all, and that something by the definition of the physicists would be God. Would that not be true simply because it was a man made theory/discovery?

Of course religion is man made, we can justify this through reason, and prove it to ourselves with the utmost intellectual honesty. but just because the majority are deceived does not mean there is something more to the universe.

Perhaps you mean to say that the "God" of the man made religions in the sense perceived by the followers does not exist?

If God does not exist, then there is in fact a absence of evidence, which is what we have, our world only makes sense we assume God is imaginary

Under the definition of God, that most religious people hold your statement is true. However when one defines God the way Einstein did, suddenly things look a lot different.

It seems to me that you are saying, that the religions are wrong, therefore there is no God. Ok, that makes sense, but just because they are wrong, and the God they describe does not actually exist, should this lead to a conclusion that there is no higher truth, or being?, that just because they were wrong about apples, there are no fruit.

It wasn't a who that made you and me, it was a what that made us, that what is the natural process called evolution.

Quite true, from the beginnings of the universe, as far as we can see back with the telescopes, it was the laws of physics that brought this together, my proposition is, what if that is God? In a very strange strange way, stranger even than quantum mechanics is.

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

And I suppose Evolution is all the more probable, explainable, and likely to have happened than the miracles found in the Bible?

Yes. In fact I can prove this if you really want.

For example I can prove that the Bible is not divinely inspired in the sense that you would believe it to be. It would take 2 historical dates, and about 1 paragraph of writing, it is very simple. Ask, and I will post this proof, but then do you really want it?

How do you explain away healings that happen to people today that can't be explained medically and things like that?

Is there any evidence for such healings?, be forewarned that when you make a statement such as that, you should be prepared to back it up with evidence

Although hypothetically, if healings did happen, Why should it be the byproduct of any holy book?

You would say healings are proof the Bible, and I would say that it is Krishna, as he has stated that he will aid any those who worship any God, since he has crated humans to want to worship. You say it proves the Bible, and yet I would say it proves the Qur'an, and it is Allah showing his infinite mercy to the people of the Book, no matter how misguided they are bout His (Allah) nature. You say it is the Bible, and yet I could say this is a world ruled by demons, and they are doing the healings to shed some hope into peoples lives, only so that they would take much more pleasure in tearing that hope down later.

Why accept one story instead of another? Claims of divine authority, do not necessarily count as evidence for it.

 

[Hisholyservant]

Yes. In fact I can prove this if you really want.

For example I can prove that the Bible is not divinely inspired in the sense that you would believe it to be. It would take 2 historical dates, and about 1 paragraph of writing, it is very simple. Ask, and I will post this proof, but then do you really want it?

I'd love to hear it

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

I'd love to hear it

=)


The Bible, in it has Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

These books come from the Torah (are just copied down from it)

If the Bible is divinely inspired, so is the OT, thereby so is the Torah. What I attempt to show here, is that the Torah, specifically Genesis is a act of plagiarism thereby destroying the idea of divine inspiration.

Classical rabbinic writings offer various ideas on when the entire Torah was revealed. The revelation to Moses at Mount Sinai is considered by many to be the most important revelatory event. According to datings of the text by Orthodox rabbis this occurred in 1280 BCE. Some rabbinic sources state that the entire Torah was given all at once at this event.

The Torah was revealed in 1280 BC

In Genesis of the Torah, we have to story of the flood

In the 11th tablet of the epic of Gilgamesh we have the flood

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/...mesh/tab11.htm

This is the same story as the Biblical one

Except in much more detail, written earlier, and is polytheistic

The earliest Sumerian versions of the epic date from as early as the Third dynasty of Ur (2100 BC-2000 BC). [citation needed] The earliest Akkadian versions are dated to ca. 2000-1500 BC. [citation needed] The "standard" Akkadian version, composed by Sin-liqe-unninni was composed sometime between 1300 BC and 1000 BC. The standard and earlier Akkadian versions are differentiated based on the opening words, or incipit.

The epic of Gilgamesh is dated earlier than the genesis story

This is to show that the Bible story, is simple plagiarism from Sumer/Akkad (rightful plagiarism, because the semitic tribes were from the area)

The Genesis flood story is neither divine revelation, nor monotheistic

The Bible is no more true than the stories it copies from

The story of Ziusudra is told in the Sumerian language in the fragmentary Eridu Genesis, which can be dated from its script to the late 17th century BC. It tells how Enki warns Ziusudra (meaning "he saw life", in reference to the gift of immortality given him by the gods), king of Shuruppak, of the gods' decision to destroy mankind with a flood—the passage describing why the gods have decided this is lost. Enki instructs Ziusudra to build a large boat—the text describing the instructions is also lost. After a flood of seven days, Ziusudra makes appropriate sacrifices and prostrations to An (sky-god) and Enlil (chief of the gods), and is given eternal life in Dilmun, the Sumerian Eden.[10]

I hope this is quite satisfactory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Flood#_note-9

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

Look at the Noah's Ark Story, most everybody knows that is a fairy tale. You can't fit trillions of insects on a boat, and there are trillions of species of insects.

Never in the history of our planet was there a boat with a man named Noah floating around the Earth with everything that creeped floating on the boat. It never happened that story is a fairy tale and everybody knows it.

This has profound implications to christianity if you think about it. This means there is at least one fairy tale in the Bible being reported as fact, that means there is at least one lie in the bible and it sticks out like a soar thumb. Just think about that sometime, and wonder what else is your book trying to tell you is fact, but really is fiction?

Maybe Mary didn't get inpregnated like the bible says? Maybe Jesus didn't come back from the dead, maybe Lazerus didn't come back from the dead? Maybe no one ever turned into a pillar of salt? Maybe the Sun never stopped right in the sky for three hours?

Maybe we only know what can be proven to be true, or what can be certainly ruled out to an astonishingly high level of probability?

I really think God is imaginary and we are only sophisticated animals riding on a planet that is spinning, and it is just like that, nobody made it. It was just a natural process that made us.

One day we will know to the finest detail how all of the stars came into existance and we won't need any superstion or books written thousands of years ago to tell us.

There is no God, face it. A lot more of what you perceive to be real will make sense if you accept that, it should because it is true.

Hey it makes sense to me, why don't you try thinking about that too? It can be fun to just entertain the idea.

Think about the fossils people have found, of earlier primates and Neanderthals. Think about evolution it is true, you give life four billion years to evolve and you get humans.

The Tyranusaures Rex evolved into a chicken. Just think about it, it is fun.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I feel that we can know apostori there is no God, all though we can't rule him out all together.

If you "know" it, then why not rule him out altogether? Either you have ruled out all other possibilities than your conclusion, or you have not established your claim, a posteriori or otherwise.

I feel that a person can't believe religion is man mad and still believe there is a God.

Why not? Is there some necessary connection between man understanding or describing something accurately? If so, explain the following phenomena:

1. For one hundred thousand years, humans had no knowledge of quantum physics, yet the behaviors of subatomic particles worked the same during that time and ours. "Physics", then, clearly exists whether or not people know anything about the science.

2. It was suggested in 1843 that Neptune must exist on mathematical principles, and indeed Neptune was found by means of the predictions made by mathematicians. However, it was later realized that the computations used were in fact wrong; the discovery of the orb in the expected place was coincidental.

Clearly the source or quality of human knowledge about a phenomenon has no serious bearing on whether or not it exists.

There maybe a remote chance that there is a creator, but really a God would have to be one we could have a personal relationship with and he would have to be all loving and all powerful, which obviously isn't the case when you look at the evidence.

Why would God need to have these qualities, necessarily? There are many who believe this, but also a great many people who do not hold these beliefs about the nature of god, but still believe him to exist.

This is how I know there is no God, I look at all the religions that have ever existed, and I know all those religions were just stories that people were making up. I don't see how christianity isn't just a different story, given the fact we can't prove God exists and therefore we can't prove any of Jesus miracles actually happened. So God and the Leprchan fall into the same category, we can't prove Leprchans exist and we can't prove God exist, so there you go the two are one in the same, just about. There is not much difference between the two.

You cannot disprove the existence of either God or leprechauns. There is a preponderance of evidence suggesting that leprechauns do not exist, but this by no means establishes that they could not. Is there a preponderance of evidence against the existence of God? You lay out a case against certain specific traditions in the following paragraphs, but say nothing directly about God- and as I have already pointed out, existing traditions have no bearing on whether God exists, or what his nature might be.

So, if we know Mohammed din't listen to an angle in a cave, and we also know that christianity was an oppressed cult for over two hundred years, which does mean we have no good reason to believe Jesus came back from the dead.

How do you know either of these things? As for Mohammed, I don't think you could prove one way or another whether an event to which he was the sole witness took place. Nor has the resurrection or non-resurrection of Christ been established in any particular way. There is little evidence to go from, except for a great number of historical accounts to the affirmative, and the present marked infrequency of physical resurrections.

Then there is half of the believing world right there rejected, the other half pretty much is just made up too, in my opinion.

It's an interesting opinion, but you've not established it with any evidence. Your claim to know about the existence of God a posteriori hinges on your ability to produce said evidence.

So there you go if you know religion is man made, then you know God does not exist, the one follows the other.

Well, no. See above.

We know this apostori by looking at religious claims and all those religions and denominations that are out there.

I note that, interestingly, you have addressed any religious claims that directly concern your thesis, namely whether or not God exists. Your claim amounts to an assumption that holy texts must be correct about tangential questions about history in order for God to exist. This does not follow logically, as far as I can see, unless you can establish otherwise.

So what are your thoughts?

To summarize, human knowledge about God is non-essential to his existence (though it may consciously or unconsciously reflect truth, as in the two examples) and religious claims about history do not necessarily reflect on their claims about the existence of God. You've therefore failed to establish a consistent a posteriori argument so far, though of course you are welcome to try.

If someone wanted to believe their dog made the universe, what is wrong with that? Nothing not a thing, obviously we couldn't take him seriously the way we have to with people who are hindu or muslim, but still it is okay to have weird belief like that.

If you are going to argue from logic, you must treat all claims equally and accept or reject them on their own merit. "weirdness" in no way excludes a belief from rational consideration. I would consider a great many things about the observable world to be absurd at the start.

Keep doubting, Thomas, but keep your head on straight too! Skepticism is alluring in its ability to be right about many small things, and thus tempts one to assume continued accuracy in the realm of big things; but all things are subject to the rational law of the universe.

This does in fact mean, we cannot read the fantastic stories of the bible and just believe them seriously, because there is at least one story that is completely false.

If an encyclopedia is wrong about one fact, does it follow that all of its definitions are wrong? Or is there the same likelihood of its accuracy regardless of the errant entry? I would say the probability of its rightness is the same before or after the wrong entry is found. It may be that the dictionary cannot be absolutely trusted, but this is logically true whether or not one of its definitions is wrong. A wise reader should never be uncritical about any text.

Then in the New Testament there is more stories that are hard to believe, look at the evidence. Look at the fact that Christianity was an oppressed cult for hundreds of years before Emperor Constatine decided to convert the Empire to christianity.

Actually, the New Testament is mostly about said oppression... how does this in any way negate the claims that the epistles make?

There is tons of evidence that the christia story is another made up religion by men. The bible is written by men, not God.

Most theologians indeed believe that men wrote the Bible, at least in the physical sense, and I certainly agree on this point.

If God does not exist, then there is in fact an absence of evidence

What would you expect a universe without a God to look like? What would you expect a universe with a God to look like? Once you define these two questions with a reasonable rationale, we could start discussing whether or not evidence exists. Otherwise, you have no basis for discussing whether there is evidence or not. Suppose I tried to explain to Aristotle that the earth revolves about the sun? He would note, correctly from his point of view, that the parallax which one might expect if the earth were in motion does not occur. In fact it does, but one needs a telescope to see it, and it would not occur to him that the parallax you would expect is unobservable without performing tricks with polished glass. The problem is not with his argument, or his demand for evidence; it is that he has incorrectly established what kind of evidence is necessary to establish his claim.

It wasn't a who that made you and me, it was a what that made us, that what is the natural process called evolution.

How does the existence of evolution disestablish the existence of god? No one in fact claims that evolution has "made" anything. Indeed, most hold that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Evolution may describe how matter changes, but it says nothing about the eventual origin of anything.

his has profound implications to christianity if you think about it. This means there is at least one fairy tale in the Bible being reported as fact, that means there is at least one lie in the bible and it sticks out like a soar thumb. Just think about that sometime, and wonder what else is your book trying to tell you is fact, but really is fiction?

It is always important to be critical about what you read, yes.

Maybe we only know what can be proven to be true

To my knowledge, no one can establish anything to be true. Philosophical claims are rarely susceptible even to predictions of probability, dealing as they do with unknown variables.

I really think God is imaginary and we are only sophisticated animals riding on a planet that is spinning, and it is just like that, nobody made it. It was just a natural process that made us.

What is a natural process? Why does the universe have a "nature"?

One day we will know to the finest detail how all of the stars came into existence and we won't need any superstion or books written thousands of years ago to tell us.

How will we know this? By means of science? Science, which is dependent on the possibility of inference by means of consistency between one moment and the next, cannot describe the "creation" of matter, given that it is apparently impossible to create matter ourselves, or observe it being created. It is possible that such an event occurred, but not that science could ever describe it. So short of any spiritual presuppositions or the deductions of science, how do you expect us to gain this knowledge?

There is no God, face it. A lot more of what you perceive to be real will make sense if you accept that, it should because it is true.

Contrarily, I find that the world makes more sense when I consider God as an aspect of it. The existence of a creator is a natural conclusion to draw (from my point of view) from the inherent order and beauty of the universe. The connectivity of God and love explains my relationships with people to me better than a empty, mechanistic paradigm. One could continue, to little end. I certainly do not claim any ability to empirically prove God's existence- indeed, if the existence of God is true, I would not by any means expect it to be empirically provable. We can establish or disestablish empirical claims about God, but the simple existence of God is not among them, nor would one expect it to be. But if we are merely talking about what "seems" right, my perspective certainly makes more sense to me on an intuitive level.

Hey it makes sense to me, why don't you try thinking about that too? It can be fun to just entertain the idea.

Well, yes. But then, you started the thread with an actual claim, so let's explore that. I don't think it really has any basis, though it has been fun to discuss it. Pray continue.

Pax.

 

[Gracchus]

I would agree that the Christian view of god is untenable.

 

[elcapitan]

You cannot disprove the existence of either God or leprechauns. There is a preponderance of evidence suggesting that leprechauns do not exist, but this by no means establishes that they could not. Is there a preponderance of evidence against the existence of God?

How can you say that when we have eyewitnesses to the existence of leprechauns?

On a more serious note, there is not a preponderance of evidence against leprechauns, it's just that we don't have any real evidence that supports their existence.

If that doesn't work for you, substitute the invisible pink unicorn. The invisible pink unicorn, by it's very nature, cannot be detected and thus there cannot be any evidence (let alone a preponderance of evidence) that establishes it's non-existence.

So, that's where Ockham's razor comes into play: why posit the existence of unnecessary entitites? The only way that Ockam's razor would not apply to God would be if we can't explain things without God yet, in which case we have a God of the gaps.

 

[DailyBlessings]

How can you say that when we have eyewitnesses to the existence of leprechauns?

On a more serious note, there is not a preponderance of evidence against leprechauns, it's just that we don't have any real evidence that supports their existence.

Exactly, though one might suggest that if leprechauns did exist, they would be likely to generate some kind of archaeological footprint, so far not extant. Regardless, one cannot discount out of hand the claims of the existence of leprechauns, particularly considering the weight of oral tradition in their favor. New species are discovered every day- the existence of any particular mythological creature is not inconceivable.

If that doesn't work for you, substitute the invisible pink unicorn. The invisible pink unicorn, by it's very nature, cannot be detected and thus there cannot be any evidence (let alone a preponderance of evidence) that establishes it's non-existence.

This is true. It's not in fact a reasonable basis for excluding it from conversation, though certainly the fact that the origin of the idea is admittedly for the sake of satire indicates no one is actually making a claim about it but rather using it as a rhetorical device. On wouldn't have to analyze whether or not Coleridge's albatross existed to understand the point of the poem- nor is it necessary to argue whether or not the fabled unicorn exists.

Though, I think it doesn't usually get across the point that its proponents mean it to, at least not to theists. Indeed, as with many popular conceptions of God, the pink unicorn would not generate any physical evidence of itself, if it existed. Therefore, one cannot claim that it does not exist on the grounds of a lack of physical evidence. Claiming that the idea is absurd is not a logically tenable rationale for dismissing it either. As with the ever popular square triangle and unliftable rock, one side thinks it is being clever and humorous, and the other side thinks the first side is unintentionally making a fool of themselves. The circle goes round and round.

So, that's where Ockham's razor comes into play: why posit the existence of unnecessary entitites?

Suppose the unecessary entities in fact exist? even if Ockham's razor were some sort of objective law of the universe (which it is not- the truth is often a lot more complicated than people think at first, anyone who has worked in science knows this) the application of it hardly indicates that a given thing is nonexistent. I might not have thought that the existence of the giant squid was necessary, may even have assumed them to be mythical when they were presumed nonexistent. But they started floating up in the Pacific, nonetheless. And God is, of course, an entirely different kind of proposition, not an empirical claim but a claim about the essential nature of the universe itself, of which scientifically observable phenomena are only an aspect of.

The only way that Ockam's razor would not apply to God would be if we can't explain things without God yet, in which case we have a God of the gaps.

What is it that you think can be explained without God, and by what means? I do hope you are not referring to the scientific method, which you would be grossly misusing if you tried to make philosophical or cosmological claims with. So far as I know, no non-religious worldview has stepped forward to make claims about why, for instance, the universe exists. Claiming that there is no answer does not count as an explanation. It avoids the question nicely, but it doesn't explain anything, and like God himself, you couldn't expect any line of evidence that could establish its validity. From the standpoint of logic, claiming the nonexistence of God is no more, and no less rational than claiming his existence, regardless of what "makes sense to you".