Must Real Atheist Know Everything to Deny God?

Question

It isn’t too uncommon for some theists to argue that logical, reasonable atheism requires such extensive knowledge that an atheist would have to actually be God in order to deny God. Here is an example once seen in the forum:

In order to be a real atheist, you would have to be everywhere, and have seen every part of the universe, to KNOW or not believe there is no God.
The Let Us Reason Ministries website expresses the same idea:

To be a Atheist one would have to be omniscient knowing all things having a perfect knowledge of the universe, to say they absolutely know God does not exist. For one to do this they would have to personally inspected all places in the present known universe and in all time, having explored everywhere seen and unseen.

Here is a slightly more sophisticated version from Hank Hanegraaff:

Atheism positively affirms that there is no God. But can the atheist be certain of this claim? You see, to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge you would have to have simultaneous access to all parts of the universe (omnipresence). Therefore, as an atheist, to be certain of this claim you would have to possess Godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind’s limited nature precludes these special abilities. The atheist’s dogmatic claim is therefore clearly unjustifiable. The atheist is attempting to prove a universal negative. In terms of logic this is called a logical fallacy.”

This argument rests upon a couple of common misunderstandings. First, it makes the mistake of assuming that an atheist, to be an atheist, must have certain knowledge that no God or gods exist. Although some atheists may certainly make this claim, it is not necessarily true of atheists generally. As discussed elsewhere, atheism is simply the absence of any belief in the existence of any gods. To simply lack theism, it is not necessary for an atheist to be either omniscient or omnipresent.

Second, even if an atheist denies the existence of some particular god or all possible gods, it is not necessary for the atheist to claim absolute certainty. Rationally justified beliefs can be, and often are, based upon evidence which falls short of absolute certainty. We aren’t absolutely certain that the sun will rise tomorrow or that our brakes will work the next time we try to stop our car; nevertheless, we believe these things because we have ample reason to do so. We do not need to be omniscient or omnipresent to hold such beliefs, and the same can be true for the belief that no god exists.

Third, it is not true that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. Certainly there are some universal negatives which cannot be proven absolutely and so can only be held based upon the weight of omniscience — for example, the claim “No swans are orange.” We would have to know the contents of the entire universe in order to make such an assertion with certainty.

Answer 1

You can not prove a negative, its up to the Theists to prove to the Atheists that their fictional god is real. They cannot produce the goods so no matter how they rationalize it , it will never be enough until some tangible evidence is produced. And no, the bible is not proof.

Do pink , flying, meat eatting unicorns exist? Prove that they dont. Same logic that a theist uses.

Answer 2

You make an interesting point. You are correct. An atheist could not know for sure, nor could a believer however. But of course a Christian's strength is his faith not his knowledge.

But I don't think its a complicated at all that. Being an atheist, which sometimes am, just means you don't believe in God. Its your opinion. I am starting to question actually. Somehow as I get older I get a feeling that there must be a power out there for good of some kind out there. Maybe because I see so much evil in the world (9-11 etc). That kind of proves in my mind that there must be a force to counteract that evil. But in any case, people have a right to believe what they will. That the great thing about the USA.

Answer 3

You are correct. Many Christians (and other theists) mistake the difference between atheist and agnostic. An agnostic believes in the possibility of God, but does not have any definite beliefs about the nature of any god or gods. An atheist simply believes there is no God. Actually, agnostics don't believe in God, while atheists believe there is no God. Atheism is a more clear belief. The argument that in order to KNOW there is no God you would essentially have to BE God (knowing all things) might be true, but that does not mean that someone cannot look at the evidence before him and decide it is more logical to believe there is no God. Faith is confidence in a belief without absolute proof, but with convincing evidence. Anytime a jury renders a verdict it is out of faith. In fact, every time you sit down in a chair without testing if it will hold your weight it is out of faith.

There is some compelling evidence both for and against the existence of God. Someone does not have to have all knowledge to make a conclusion as to what they believe. Will some believe wrong? Yes, either God does exist or He does not. Does that mean that those who believe wrongly are stupid? Certainly not.

Many Christians are angry that so many atheists assume we are stupid because of our beliefs. Assume that we completely "reject science" without cause because of our beliefs. However, we don't realize that we so often do the same to atheists. We often make them out to be stupid, without acknowledging that they have reasons for their belief, too.

As Christians, we should endeavor to love and try to understand all of those around us. I believe as human beings we should, too. Thank you for pointing out where we have both failed, and hopefully we will both strive to understand one another rather than attack one another in the future.

Answer 4

If you take that type of approach and apply it consistently to all of life, you could never actually claim to know anything at all, because when you get down to it, you can't absolutely prove or disprove anything (beyond trivial tautologies).

"God doesn't exist" is a judgement held contingently just like any other judgemet. But the uncertainty in it is not because there is reason to suspect a god might exist, the uncertainty is simply the uncertainty of knowledge.

Theists who make these types of arguments have simply shifted their special pleading away from the specific position toward knowedge in general.

Answer 5

If you knew everything, you would be God. Then you couldn't be an atheist. But you can certainly deny God's existence with limited knowledge; although, you cannot be absolutely certain that there is no God then.

I personally believe this is a nonsensical argument. If somebody says, I'm an atheist. I'll take their word for it. Why argue a senseless point like that?

Answer 6

You haven't been reading my answers, have you? If there is no proof either way, then neither side can claim the existence or absence of God. You can believe either way you want, but if there is no proof, you can't say, yes, God is true, or no, God is false. It's a logical fallacy. If it were a court case, it would be thrown out for lack of evidence. The best logical position would actually be agnosticism--you don't know either way and you haven't made a decision, but if you got proof one way or the other, then you could decide. Yay, logic!

Answer 7

What a wonderfully crafted question! You are correct, I believe, in your supposition that atheism requires nothing but the LACK of belief, for which one hardly needs godlike powers. Also, most atheists (and I include myself in this) do not claim to have special knowledge about the non-existance of any gods, we simply choose not to believe that they exist, usually based upon the lack of evidence supporting their existance.

Answer 8

Deny it and walk away from the table. You aren't required to justify your beliefs, and you are not going to change any minds. You will feel much more peaceful if you just stop arguing with them. You DON'T have to prove anything. It is your hereafter you may make the life choices you want and do with it what you please.

They create these crap-traps with their never-ending circular logic that sounds like debate. It is pointless. We will all find out in the end and none of the hot air blown in this forum or any other will make any difference. Just let it go - there are better and more substantive fights.

Good luck!

Answer 9

No, you can deny God without knowing everything. However, if you accept that you can't know then, by definition, you become agnostic, a much easier belief to defend. Atheism is more of a religion than agnosticism in this case. Especially since reading your answers...you clearly try and defend your atheism.

Answer 10

It's not a matter of denying god, but simply not embracing god. I don't embrace the idea of god because their is no evidence to prove even remotely that I should. Like for example, do christians first deny the existance of Vishnu? Do they have provable evidence Vishnu doesn't exist? No, they just have no reason to embrace Vishnu, due to what they learned already about their god. Later of course, if they have reason to present an argument denying Vishnu they will.

(link about impossibility of christian concept of god)
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/imposs.htm