Theism and atheism, the two opposing sides over the course of human history, are responses to the origin of universe and existence. Copious discussions have been made about their discourse, arguments, evidences, and requirements. One of the criticisms of atheists against theists is that the existence of God and His acceptance through the attributes expressed by religions is a self-contradictory issue that will not be accepted if it is perceived correctly. Michael Martin, the contemporary philosopher and atheist, takes attributes such as absolute Knower or absolute Goodness as the reason for the contradiction and denial of the existence of God, and has tried to rationalize atheism this way. Adopting a descriptive-analytical research method, this paper aims to critically examine Martin’s view in this regard and show the weaknesses of limiting the world of being to matter and materiality and likening God to human in the acquisition of knowledge, as God’s presential knowledge (which is the highest level of knowledge) makes Him needless to the human types of knowledge. Martin’s mistake lies in his human-like view to God and his lack of true understanding of the absolute Knower; that is, he should have not addressed the divine knowledge based on a non-philosophical classification of knowledge.