By definition, atheism is the doctrine of belief that there is no God. It is an affirmation of God’s nonexistence. This ought not to be confused with agnosticism, which claims not to know. Postulating the nonexistence of God, atheism immediately commits the blunder of an absolute negation, which is self-contradictory. For, to sustain the belief that there is no God, it has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge.”
So true. From a philosophical standpoint, unless you have infinite knowledge, the best you can do is conjecture about God’s existence, which in its basic essence amounts to agnosticism. Or from a logical standpoint, without the premise of infinite knowledge, it is a fallacy to conclude that an infinite being is nonexistent.
And from ‘the other side of the fence’ (this one by John Polkinghorne, “a colleague of Stephen Hawking” who’s “eminently known for his scholarship and brilliance in…high energy physics”, after discussing one possible explanation for the order observed in the universe):
Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not physics, but in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes… A possible explanation of equal intellectual respectability – and to my mind, greater elegance – would be that this one world is the way it is because it is the creation of the will of a Creator who purposes that it should be so.