According to Robert A. Harris, 'a common sense look at the world, with all its beauty, apparent design, meaning, and vibrancy, would seem to predispose a neutral observer to presume that God exists unless good evidence for his non-existence could be brought to bear … The fact that materialists often struggle with this issue, working to explain away the design of the [[creation]], for example, would seem to back up this claim.' Nevertheless, British humanist Richard Norman asserts that, 'the onus is on those who believe in a god to provide reasons for that belief. If they cannot come up with good reasons, then we should reject the belief.' It was another British philosopher, Antony Flew (who recently became a theist), who most famously urged that the 'onus of proof must lie upon the theist', and that unless compelling reasons for God's existence could be given there should be a 'presumption of atheism'. However, by 'atheism' Flew meant merely 'non-theism' – a non-standard definition of 'atheism' that includes agnosticism but excludes atheism as commonly understood. The presumption of atheism is, therefore, not particularly interesting unless (as with Richard Norman explicitly and Lewis Wolpert implicitly) it really is the presumption of atheism rather than the presumption of agnosticism. However, the former is far harder to defend than the latter.<ref>[https://www.bethinking.org/atheism/six-impossible-things-before-breakfast Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast] by Peter S. Williams</ref>}}
The article ''Why Is Atheism a Failure?'' states:
{{Cquote|[[Definition of atheism|An atheist is a person who denies the existence of God]]. A little reflection, however, reveals that the atheist’s position is indefensible. The only way anyone can prove no God exists is to be God Himself! Let me explain.
The total amount of knowledge any single person possesses is infinitesimal compared to the vastness of the universe and the immeasurable amount of information it contains. A person would have to be omnipresent (present everywhere at once) and omniscient (have all awareness and understanding) in order to have enough information to know that no deity exists. And these attributes are part of most people’s concept of God! Hence, no finite human being can prove God does not exist because God may very well exist beyond one’s comprehension or experience.
Of course, this fact stops few atheists from arguing against the existence of God. But it does illustrate that [[Atheism and dogmatism|dogmatic assertions for the nonexistence of God]] are presumptuous [[Atheism and irrationality|and irrational]]. No one can prove God doesn’t exist.<ref>[https://www.kregel.com/articles/why-is-atheism-a-failure-0076 Why Is Atheism a Failure?], Kregel Publications</ref>}}
== See also ==