They could - but most don't - which is what I wrote.
"In order for an Atheist to be correct they'd have to prove no thing could possibly be God" - Completely wrong. For an atheist to be shown to have the wrong belief a god would have to be proven.
No, your argument is completely wrong. Those who believe in God , creator of all that exists, see all that is as God's creation.
All the atheist is doing is disagreeing with that. And when they side with science as cause that's even less credible. Because science posits theory as to the source of all that came to exist. But they have no proof, nor do they posit fact, as to what it was that created all things.
When they argued it was the Big Bang, they couldn't answer what it was that was created to go "BANG" in the first place.
It's logic. For atheists to argue there's no such thing as God they'd have to prove no thing could possible be God anywhere at all. Their denial and refusal to believe isn't proof God isn't there. It's proof they believe God isn't there.
Like the scenario about gold in Alaska. Someone says, there's no gold in Alaska.
They'd have to prove that. Because we know Alaska exists. We know that gold exists. The doubter about gold in Alaska would have to prove there is no gold in Alaska.
(Like the atheist claims there is no God at all).
To prove the proclamation that there is no gold in Alaska the doubter would have to excavate all of Alaska to prove their point.
Proving there is gold in Alaska isn't incumbent on the one that says to that skeptic, no, you're wrong, there is Gold in Alaska.
Proof falls on the one that makes the impossible declaration of, "no such thing".
All that exists is proof of God. The skeptic that claims God doesn't exist has to prove that while there is proof of existence, that there is no thing called God responsible for that. Because the proof of existence is in their face. Their contention that God isn't responsible , when they argue against cause of existence, makes the onus on the atheist to prove it.
Simply saying, uhuh it isn't God, isn't proof.
When nature itself, and science has no definitive answers either as to first cause
- That's just an argument from ignorance.
That's the best an atheist's got?
That you exist is proof of God. God having created everything that included creating your parents.
Prove God isn't there when you and your parents are.
Science can't prove God isn't real. Science can't prove something other than God created all that exists.
But you go ahead and believe God doesn't exist.
You do. When you argue God didn't make that possible. And Science can't prove something else is absolute as first cause, you're left in quite the quandary.
"No God" is an untenable belief system. Looking at all that exists and saying, yeah, but it isn't due to God, makes the onus on the one that argues against reality.
Go ahead.
