Changes

This means that you would have to be [[omnipresent]]. You would also have to know everything about every part of the universe, so you would be [[omniscient]]. Then, just at the point when you proved that there was no God, you would also have proven that you were one.<ref>http://www.kennedycommentary.org/default.asp?pg=topicmessage&id=1419</ref>}}

This means that you would have to be [[omnipresent]]. You would also have to know everything about every part of the universe, so you would be [[omniscient]]. Then, just at the point when you proved that there was no God, you would also have proven that you were one.<ref>http://www.kennedycommentary.org/default.asp?pg=topicmessage&id=1419</ref>}}

Atheists would rightly respond to this line of argument by simply pointing out that in the debate over whether something does or does not exist, in the absence of any scientific proof one way or the other, the burden of proof would lie with the person arguing for the existence of that something. In the above example, the atheist would win the day.

Atheists would rightly respond to this line of argument by simply pointing out that in the debate over whether something does or does not exist, in the absence of any scientific proof one way or the other, the burden of proof would lie with the person arguing for the existence of that something. In the above example, the atheist would win the day. Simply claiming that you know god exists carries no weight--in the words of founding father and Deist Thomas Paine, writing in the ''Age of Reason'', “ ... it is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.”

==Tenuousness of Atheism==

==Tenuousness of Atheism==