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>Kennedy, James D., [http://www.kennedycommentary.org/default.asp?pg=topicmessage&id=1419 A Universal Negative]</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>Kennedy, James D., [http://www.kennedycommentary.org/default.asp?pg=topicmessage&id=1419 A Universal Negative]</ref>}}

Logician [[Mortimer Adler]] concurs with Dr. Kennedy that the standard definition of atheism which attempts to prove a universal negative in regards to God's existence is a self-defeating proposition and prominent atheists such as [[Gordon Stein]] and [[Carl Sagan]] have candidly stated that God's existence cannot be disproven.<ref>Samples, Kenneth R., [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0131a.txt Putting The Atheist on The Defensive] ''Christian Research Journal'', Fall 1991 & Winter 1992, page 7</ref>

Philosopher Dr. [[Mortimer Adler]] concurs with Dr. Kennedy that the standard definition of atheism which attempts to prove a universal negative in regards to God's existence is a self-defeating proposition and prominent atheists such as [[Gordon Stein]] and [[Carl Sagan]] have candidly stated that God's existence cannot be disproven.<ref>Samples, Kenneth R., [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0131a.txt Putting The Atheist on The Defensive] ''Christian Research Journal'', Fall 1991 & Winter 1992, page 7</ref>

===Atheism and Reasonable Argument===

===Atheism and Reasonable Argument===