79. ATHEISTS CLAIM THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD CANNOT BE PROVED
Suppose an atheist accepts the conclusion from the earlier stage of the argument, and agrees that indeed the non-existence of GOD cannot be proved.
78. THE RATIONALE OF “THERE IS NO GOD”
We refuted the ontological atheistic proposition that “there is no GOD,” and showed that no rational person would make such a statement.
77. ATHEISM AS AN ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT IS TOO PRETENTIOUS
Accordingly, atheism as an ontological claim is too pretentious and excessive to take seriously, and no person with a little humility, or knowledge of philosophy, would make such a claim.
76. Yet, logic requires the existence of God
On the other hand, some have argued that logic actually requires the existence of GOD. The most famous proof of this kind is Descartes’ ontological evidence that the concept of GOD contains only perfection, and since part of it is existence, GOD necessarily exists.
75. Isn’t God beyond space and time?
After all, GOD, by conventional definition, is beyond space and time without a tangible figure or form that can be perceived (unless GOD chooses to reveal one). Empirical experience could prove the existence of GOD, if we could find evidence in some form, but it can never disprove the existence of GOD because that would require proving a negative.
74. “There is no God” – The Ontological Argument
The ontological version of atheism makes a claim about existing reality, arguing that “GOD” does not exist, and is not part of reality.
God Does Not Exist
Atheists are a small, though growing minority of the world’s population. They are convinced that they have discovered the amazing truth that there is no GOD, all religions are false, and the billions of believers are wrong.
73. ARE SCIENTISTS BIASED TOWARDS ATHEISM?
In light of my revelations and logic here, it is quite understandable why there is a bias among scientists towards atheism. After all, scientists are trained to ignore the presence of the supernatural and the divine, and to push themselves to explain everything without them.
72. SCIENTISTS ARE STUCK OR CONFINED
The problem is, at this point, scientists are so engrossed in their scientific game that they are unwilling to hear about anything metaphysical or supernatural not only as an explanation at the micro-level for some natural phenomenon but also at the macro level, as an explanation for the existence of the universe and the laws of nature in general.
71. CAN SCIENCE EXPLAIN EVERYTHING WITHOUT SUPERNATURAL FACTORS?
And at the macro level, even if we assume that science is able to give natural and plausible explanations for all the phenomena in the natural world, without needing any supernatural factors at all, the question still remains: Is this the final explanation?