The great philosopher Socrates, they say, said before his death "I know that I do know nothing"
We can't say that in our days. In fact we know an awful lot of things about Nature and every day enhances our knowledge of the Universe in general and of the Earth in particular.
If we imagine a theoretical absolute limit of our knowledge of Nature and try to draw a curve within two coordinates, one being the amount of knowledge and the other the axis of time we would get an ascending nonlinear curve showing a lot of humps.
Each hump would mean that almost every discovery of a law of nature is not necessarily a leap forward to the absolute goal but that some discoveries are creating new problems which are awaiting for answers, and so it continues it's humping road upwards.
The continuous line of the ascending curve is paved by science, representing a way of thinking accessible to reason of man, where it is no place for any supra natural phenomena.
Now, if we draw a doted line on this curve stretching from the point which represents our actual knowledge of Nature, upwards to the absolute goal of knowledge , that's just the area where believers in supra natural forces are trying to place themselves in.
In a more concrete way ,we know a lot about the micro cosmos ,down to the elementary bricks of matter ,we know a lot about the macro cosmos with it's galaxies and black holes and the recently issue of the black matter, we know a lot about evolution of life and so on.
But there are a lot of things we don't know as for instance the origin of life on Earth ,how come that our globe is placed in the so called Goldilocks zone, why is the strong force 0.007,why is time oriented only in one direction, and an awful lot of similar still unanswered questions.
Trying to disprove the existence of God, atheism puts forward the conquests of science. But science still fails to answer to a lot of issues and is giving by that the opportunity to theists, creationists, ID-ists and alike, to sustain their case, Moreover atheism even retreats before them saying that it is only "almost " certain that God does not exist.
From the above mentioned considerations one can draw following conclusions:
-theoretically, there is not possible at all for men, the Homo Sapiens
who came out of Africa only a few tens of thousands years ago (a little fraction of
time related to the appearance of humans on Earth),who are a link in the evolution
of life to come forward with scientific answers to all problems of Nature.
-if science has not the possibility of totally disproving the existence of God through
explanation of Nature than atheism should try to find another convincing
arguments to it.
-the anthropic principle used as an explanation of the above unanswered
problems is unconvincing, unnecessary, not baring the intrude of God, and even
exhales a faint smell of faith.
-accepting only a partially disproval of God is weakening atheism to the point of
trading percents of how much it is right against how much it is wrong.
There exists a particular way of disproving God, which I would call the major disprove of God, as follows.
The very notion about an entity called God sprung up from dawn of history from the beliefs of people in supra natural forces which are governing the world.
The notion of God used by theists and creationists where does it come from?
Did a supra God send this notion about himself into their brains?
It's absurd.
In reality their God is only another face of the same old God religious people do believe in him.
I consider that we can refer to God, as being similar to the Roman God Janus, a two faced entity:
- one face is the "creator" of the Universe. He who knows how the world ticks and
also why it ticks as it does. I call him the universal God or in short UG and he is
the master of the theists, creationists ,ID-ists and alike.
-the other face is what I call the Humanly God or in short HG. He is in "charge" of
the destiny of humans, of their souls, of their life after death .He demands to be
glorified and worshipped, he loves and punishes men as he pleases He is the
master of religions.
Now, whereas UG is only partially disprovable by science, HG is without any doubt a creation of man which is motivated by needs of human society, which can be analyzed by historical archeological, psychological ,socio-economical and other scientifically means, enabling by that atheism to disprove totally his existence.
Both, UG and HG are in fact the same entity called God .
In my opinion you can not treat UG as a separate entity, as scientific atheism do because it’s very notion derives from the same God as HG.
I am not saying that the above disproval is the ultimate one, I am calling it the major one because it is undeniable and therefore no atheist should by-pass it.
Finally here is a slogan which I propose:
"There are no Gods other than God created by man and he dwells in no place of the Universe but in the minds of people who believe in him."
We can't say that in our days. In fact we know an awful lot of things about Nature and every day enhances our knowledge of the Universe in general and of the Earth in particular.
If we imagine a theoretical absolute limit of our knowledge of Nature and try to draw a curve within two coordinates, one being the amount of knowledge and the other the axis of time we would get an ascending nonlinear curve showing a lot of humps.
Each hump would mean that almost every discovery of a law of nature is not necessarily a leap forward to the absolute goal but that some discoveries are creating new problems which are awaiting for answers, and so it continues it's humping road upwards.
The continuous line of the ascending curve is paved by science, representing a way of thinking accessible to reason of man, where it is no place for any supra natural phenomena.
Now, if we draw a doted line on this curve stretching from the point which represents our actual knowledge of Nature, upwards to the absolute goal of knowledge , that's just the area where believers in supra natural forces are trying to place themselves in.
In a more concrete way ,we know a lot about the micro cosmos ,down to the elementary bricks of matter ,we know a lot about the macro cosmos with it's galaxies and black holes and the recently issue of the black matter, we know a lot about evolution of life and so on.
But there are a lot of things we don't know as for instance the origin of life on Earth ,how come that our globe is placed in the so called Goldilocks zone, why is the strong force 0.007,why is time oriented only in one direction, and an awful lot of similar still unanswered questions.
Trying to disprove the existence of God, atheism puts forward the conquests of science. But science still fails to answer to a lot of issues and is giving by that the opportunity to theists, creationists, ID-ists and alike, to sustain their case, Moreover atheism even retreats before them saying that it is only "almost " certain that God does not exist.
From the above mentioned considerations one can draw following conclusions:
-theoretically, there is not possible at all for men, the Homo Sapiens
who came out of Africa only a few tens of thousands years ago (a little fraction of
time related to the appearance of humans on Earth),who are a link in the evolution
of life to come forward with scientific answers to all problems of Nature.
-if science has not the possibility of totally disproving the existence of God through
explanation of Nature than atheism should try to find another convincing
arguments to it.
-the anthropic principle used as an explanation of the above unanswered
problems is unconvincing, unnecessary, not baring the intrude of God, and even
exhales a faint smell of faith.
-accepting only a partially disproval of God is weakening atheism to the point of
trading percents of how much it is right against how much it is wrong.
There exists a particular way of disproving God, which I would call the major disprove of God, as follows.
The very notion about an entity called God sprung up from dawn of history from the beliefs of people in supra natural forces which are governing the world.
The notion of God used by theists and creationists where does it come from?
Did a supra God send this notion about himself into their brains?
It's absurd.
In reality their God is only another face of the same old God religious people do believe in him.
I consider that we can refer to God, as being similar to the Roman God Janus, a two faced entity:
- one face is the "creator" of the Universe. He who knows how the world ticks and
also why it ticks as it does. I call him the universal God or in short UG and he is
the master of the theists, creationists ,ID-ists and alike.
-the other face is what I call the Humanly God or in short HG. He is in "charge" of
the destiny of humans, of their souls, of their life after death .He demands to be
glorified and worshipped, he loves and punishes men as he pleases He is the
master of religions.
Now, whereas UG is only partially disprovable by science, HG is without any doubt a creation of man which is motivated by needs of human society, which can be analyzed by historical archeological, psychological ,socio-economical and other scientifically means, enabling by that atheism to disprove totally his existence.
Both, UG and HG are in fact the same entity called God .
In my opinion you can not treat UG as a separate entity, as scientific atheism do because it’s very notion derives from the same God as HG.
I am not saying that the above disproval is the ultimate one, I am calling it the major one because it is undeniable and therefore no atheist should by-pass it.
Finally here is a slogan which I propose:
"There are no Gods other than God created by man and he dwells in no place of the Universe but in the minds of people who believe in him."
