First the existence of God is not a proven fact. Secondarily, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle proves that an Omniscient God cannot exist, because it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time.
Atheism is the wrong term. Do you call someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus an anticlaus? The burden of proof is on those who believe in Santa Claus to prove that he exists.
Common fallacy to state.
It’s intersting to note that the common accepted idea of Hell is the absence of Reason.
The absence of Reason also supposes the existance of it. Pure reason. Reason even beyond our comprehention.
It’s not hard to imagine being ignorant of laws of nature. We, as a species, have spent the overwhelming majority of our existance learning how ignorant we are.
Lack of understanding is not proof of not being in a situation. Just because we can’t comprehend (yet) momentum versus position, does not mean it is “impossible” Only “uncomprehendable”.
The fact of the matter is- we don’t know all the facts about existance yet, so how can either side boast claims to proof of anything? *Especially* the people who venture to say there is no God. An unexplained origin is at least an origin. “No God” supposes we are then looking for proof of nothing... which in our own limited growth translates to “Why the hell should we even care?”
The answer comes back- because there is an origin, and you will know it!
It’s not “What” or “Why” of God doing things that bothers atheists, but “Who”.
Regardless, I would point out to you that there is such a thing as subjective evidence...evidence that is entirely sufficient for me, but not at all adequate for you. For example, let's say that you once met Paul Newman at a dinner party. You tell someone "I once met Paul Newman at a dinner party," and they challenge you with "Oh yeah? Prove it!"
Your experience is adequate to prove to you that you once met Paul Newman; you can remember he was drinking red wine, and he told a story about Robert Redford. However, your experience is utterly inadequate as proof to anyone else who didn't happen to also be at that same party. This is what I mean by experiential evidence.
So when you say "First, the existence of God is not a proven fact," you may be correct in the classical sense of the word "proof," in that the existence of God has not been logically proven to an objective standard. You may also be correct according to your personal experience, which contains within it no evidence for the existence of God, let alone proof.
However, you cannot assess others' experiential evidence.
There, now its correct.
To believers it is a proven fact through direct experience of God.
Secondarily, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle proves that an Omniscient God cannot exist, because it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time.
OK, I'll bite. Heisenberg was a Christian. How does a theory in science disprove God? Did Heisenberg address what and how God knows at all in his theory or are you just misapplying it? DOH!
Couldn’t God know all possible futures?