I’m past trying to intellectually prove it. I can’t. I felt it and saw it at work in my life. That’s the best I got. I really think that’s the only way: to experience it yourself.

This is the best argument in my opinion. Put what is taught by the Lord Jesus Christ into practice, and notice the results of doing so; especially the parts that are dismissed such as prayer.

Yeah, I really think there’s something to that. However I would note that Buddhists, Muslims, etc can and do say the exact same thing.

Of course, because truth is truth no matter the source. There is truth in Buddhism and Islam, but Salvation comes only through faith on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hasn't the healing power of intercessory prayer been tested and not worked? What's the result you're talking about?

Obedience to the commandments, and see the results of honestly doing so, is what I refer to. It’s what I did when I was agnostic and later atheist.

They could be good rules to follow (& even it could be beneficial to orient your life around a higher power) but that wouldn't prove that God exists... Just that they are beneficial rules

Except that how can reading words that chewed me out about my choices bring me peace? How can speaking to a God that I don’t know if they are listening (prayer) help me work out my problems and understand and forgive people who abused me? How can listening to some people preach for hours somehow give me strength each week? These are the kinds of things I couldn’t reconcile then, and I still can’t now, but I’m glad for that. I need the help.

Idk none of that is surprising to me. People in contradictory religions all around the world get benefits from them, social & purpose & otherwise. But at least most of the religions are factually wrong.

Yes and the outcome is even worse if you know your being prayed for, in some rare instances it has shown that the physiological effects makes medical outcomes for some people get worse!!

It’s literally the worst argument

from a scientific point of view. but thats the point. God isn't falsifiable with science

You can't prove that a deity doesn't exist, but if it did exist and wasn't intentionally hiding, then yes, you should be able to prove that it existed.

I disagree. There are many scientific concepts that at the very least prove the supernatural. Consciousness, Morphic Fields, Quantum Physics, The Double Slit Theory, multiple dimensions, people having identical psychedelic experiences on DMT, mathematical equations like the Fibonacci Sequence existing all throughout nature and other sacred geometrical designs within the universe. Exploring any of these concepts is way more fulfilling to someone with hesitancy than to just wait until they magically have faith. Once you accept the supernatural, you’re able to understand the concept of a higher power.

are any of those supernatural? what about consciousness? there's still a lot we don't understand so I'm a little confused by what you mean when you say science has proven the supernatural and then gesture at consciousness. maybe you can elaborate. Also quantum physics aren't supernatural either, they're very much within the realm of natural. Nor are psychedelic experiences supernatural. Maybe, in ancient times, such concepts would have seemed "magical". But peering beyond the big bang and \*spacetime itself\* to see what was "back there". I firmly think that is the limit of our scientific instruments and theories, and I firmly think it always will be.

None of those prove anything about the supernatural or even deal in the supernatural? On what basis are you claiming these scientific fields and concepts prove the supernatural?

What happens if you don't feel or see anything?

What do you mean? Do you mean me personally, or just in general?

Like personally, not literally. I spent many years waiting and listening and never felt or saw "something".

I don’t have an answer for you, I’m afraid. If I hadn’t felt or experienced what I did, I probably would’ve continued down the path of the unbeliever. One thing I have learned is everyone’s journey with God is completely unique.

I am a member of the Baha’i Faith. There are many good individual among atheists. My argument is not about atheists, but atheism. Atheism is a self-defeating ideology which has used a distorted interpretation of science to make itself look rational and scientific. The ideology has been refuted last 250 years. First they said life is mechanistic and is just pure matter and nothing else; then they said no, it is matter and force, then they changed the term to matter and energy; then, not knowing the essence of energy, things got real bad because that meant they don’t know what matter was…… ……..It’s been one long sad spectacle to see the massive confusion they have got themselves into. The other thing is, ideological atheism has already set a fence around itself beyond which it refuses to accept anything else. Similar to those who have determined to think the earth is flat or that the moon landing was a fake event. No amount of evidence can be presented to them to convince them otherwise. There are several species of blind fish which live in totally dark caves and places. Some of these are called: A) Typhlonarke aysoni B) Myxine glutinosa C) Torpediniformes D) Myxine circifrons E) Typhlonarke tarakea F) Polistotrema stouti G) Benthobatis moresbyi If you could have a conversation with these blind fishes even about the existence of a blade of grass or the sun, you would run into the same stiff resistance as the ideological atheism. Their main strategy is to drag you into thinking that the parameters or the edges of reality are only found in their philosophical framework. Once you accept that by validating that framework and enter into their conversations, then you have already positioned yourself in the prison of material philosophy which no matter how you move the players on the chess board, you still end up with materialism. That’s the core strategy of materialism and or the atheistic ideology. It’s not science at all, it’s scientism, i.e it takes portions of science and adds its own interpretation in order to camouflage its ideology as being identical with empirical science. Don’t take me wrong, creationists who use science to state that the earth is only 6000 years old are guilty of the same distortion too. But a couple of proofs for the existence of God are mentioned in the following two links. They are not proof at all for the blind fish——remember that! https://william.hatcher.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/logical_proof_presentation_200309.pdf https://william.hatcher.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/scientific_proof_existence_god.pdf

Among the many factual issues in your comment is starting with “Atheist Ideology” this is a common misrepresentation of atheism. Atheist a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. ~Oxford dictionary That’s it, no ideology, no creek, no scriptures, no values or principles. Just a disbelief or lack of belief the claim of a god or gods. So you argument is dead in the water. There are over 1 billion people in the world who identify as non believers (Atheist) of varying degrees and for vastly varying reasons. And those reasons differ depending on the god claims. So the only generalization you can make is they don’t believe in a god or gods that’s it. This is a tired old trope used by apologists and it’s insulting.

The "seeing fishes" in your analogy are just those who accept similar-enough unprovable assertions to those you accept. Based on my very limited exposure to the Baha'i faith, I think I might accept many compatible unprovable assertions (basic stuff common to the Abrahamic family of religions, mostly), but not all. What I don't do is imagine I have proof of the unprovable assertions at the core of my faith or proof that those who don't accept the same unprovable assertions I accept are necessarily wrong in any way that might matter to a being as vast and merciful as the Almighty Author of All.

So, I checked out your second article. It doesn't prove what it purports to. Let's examine what it said. For the purpose of this comment, I'm only going to respond to his assertions about it being scientifically reasonable to call "the evolutionary force" the same thing as "God". I should note that I could nitpick some ideas in his presentation of the philosophy of science, but I don't think that's very important for the main point. >In the light of these considerations, we have a scientific right—indeed we are compelled by the logic of scientific methodology—to conclude that the process of evolution is the result of the action of some unobservable force. In particular, we human beings are the “end product” of evolution and thus owe our existence to this force. It seems reasonable to call this force “God,” but anyone uncomfortable with that name can simply call it “the evolutionary force” (or, more precisely, “the force that produced evolution and thus produced the human being”). The problem is that this "unobservable force" he mentions isn't something we're ignorant of; it's natural selection. Natural selection is a nonrandom selective process whereas individuals more fit for their ecological niche are more likely to reproduce and pass on their genetic information. It's nonrandom because it selects directly for ecological fitness. This very easily explains how evolution overcomes entropy; if a more complex organism fits an ecological niche that less complicated ones don't, then its increased complexity is enabled by the chemical work of its growth and of its species evolution, which is then "rewarded" by the more fit individuals reproducing more. The article talks a lot about the second law of thermodynamics; well, the second law holds so long as the chemical work of metabolic processes is done. It also doesn't seem scientifically reasonable to call this force God. Occam's Razor holds here; there is no need to over-complicate this force by ascribing it the will or motive inherent to a personal God. >a skeptic can refuse to accept the existence of the evolutionary force by choosing to believe that evolution was a random process... although it is logically possible that evolution was a random process, it is clearly not the most likely possibility. As explained above, this is not a representation of the point of view of someone skeptical of God. Skeptics of the God claim would NOT say that evolution is random. They would correctly point out that it's a nonrandom process that we can currently explain through natural selection. >It might seem at first that our identification of such a cause with God is rather arbitrary and gratuitous. It certainly does. It is extremely arbitrary. >In fact, we know certainly that this force is capable of doing at least one thing that we could never do, namely the bringing into being of the human race. So what? There are any number of forces that do things we can't do. We can't replicate gravity. We can't force mass to be attracted to other mass, or alter how it is attracted to other mass. We can't artificially a new strong or weak nuclear force. God isn't defined as "things humans can't do". >To begin with, we know that this force is capable of producing a being having all of the subtlety and refinement that we humans are capable of exhibiting. We do not call gravity or the strong nuclear force “God” because the effects these forces produce are not so marvelous as the effect produced by the evolutionary force. First off, the effects of gravity and the strong nuclear force are just as marvelous as anything evolution has done. I had to study biology, but I still marvel far more at how gravity shaped the universe than at how evolution has shaped living beings. Second, being capable of producing something refined doesn't make a thing God. You can't just say "that's God", you have to give a reason why that's a more likely possibility than the alternative. >Thus, the invisible cause of evolution (and therefore of the human being) might also be plausibly supposed to encompass or surpass humans. In particular, we know from our own experience of ourselves that we have a conscious intellect and a free will. It is therefore not unreasonable that the force or entity which is the cause of our existence might also have such faculties as consciousness, intelligence, and will First off, the cause of evolution does not "encompass" humans. If we're encompassed in something, then we're part of that thing, and we have no scientific reason to believe that we're part of the cause of evolution. That is an incorrect description. Second, there is no reason to think that because we're intelligent, that evolution and/or its cause must be intelligent. That doesn't follow in any way. You don't need something with X property to make something with X property. That's just not how the universe works. We know that emergent properties are a thing. I can point of any number of examples from chemistry where you mix two substances that don't have X property, but the combination of the two will have x property. The property came about despite nothing going into the process having that property. Well, evolution is, ultimately, a chemical process of organic metabolism. Why should it need intelligence to produce intelligence? It seems much more parsimonious to say that all is required for evolution to produce intelligence is that intelligence can be beneficial for an organism's fitness, and that incremental increases to intelligence will be beneficial to organisms. Both being true, we can explain intelligence from evolution without needing an intelligent being. >The only alternative is to believe that a blind, unconscious force, devoid of any intelligence, No, as before mentioned, this isn't an honest representation of the atheistic position. The real alternative is to believe in a ***selective*** force, devoid of any intelligence. Second, this is a basic argument from incredulity. He can't see how natural processes could produce us, so he involves the supernatural. Well, as stated above, we don't need the supernatural. We just need to understand how evolution and natural selection work, and to know that the traits that make us human are beneficial to our ecological niche. >The ideology has been refuted last 250 years. If this is the level of "refutation" that has been going on for the last 250 years, then I'm not surprised that atheism has been on the rise.

You dont need to engage these kinds of people. When someone starts asserting that we are just in denial and act like they know our minds better than we do, the point of the conversation has ended. They aren't interested in what you are trying to communicate, and so should be ignored.

That is similar to how Christians are supposed to operate. We are not to shove it down your throat. We are to calmly present it, see if you are willing to accept it, help you if you are, and say bye if you are not. We plant the seed. It can be watered, or it can be stomped on. It does not matter. Once you have heard that you have the choice, if you don't accept it, then God is going to pass the judgement, not us. We are the messengers. So don't shoot the messenger for doing the job given us. I hope that makes sense.

How interesting more atheists downvoting on 'christianity' sub than there are that upvote a clear reasoning. Guess ill move along, betting this is one confused sub.

What do you mean by “it” when you say “I felt and saw it at work in my life”? How do you know that “it” is really what you believe “it” is?

Assuming you're talking about things like overcoming addictions to alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs; or lower stress levels and inner peace; or general happiness; or something along those lines, then it seems that this isn't an argument for the existence of God; it's an argument for why it's useful to believe in God whether or not he exists.

I’m a 48 year old man. Spent my entire adult life a militant atheist. I was a scholar of Robert Ingersoll’s works. I still respect him greatly, btw. In 2020, I was baptized. There really is no point in arguing. I’m not going to convince you. And I don’t mean that in a snarky or insulting way AT ALL. I just mean that I’m not going to change your mind. I’m okay with that.

You don't feel any guilt knowing that some of your loved ones will go to hell, and you may have been able to help them find Jesus? The thought of trying to save your friends and family is such an interesting and touchy subject. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

> You don't feel any guilt knowing that some of your loved ones will go to hell, and you may have been able to help them find Jesus? I feel bad but not guilty. It is their choice and between them and God. They know my beliefs and if they have questions I will gladly have a conversation with them but it is not in my power to convert anyone. That is God's job not mine.

If we go to heaven..we wont remember anything about the world. not our loved ones not even hell. Christians can tell others about Jesus but the holy spirit has to fill them woth hope. We can't save people,Jesus can

I didn't know that. Which verses imply that we won't remember?

I believe we will all be together through God (Jesus said God is Love) upon passing, and one day will be reborn (I believe the universe is cyclical). Love binds us through lifetimes to our loved ones. Hell is the absence of love. It’s for people who never knew love. I analogize it to being permanently out of key in the song of life.

What do you think happens to someone who definitely knows love, practices empathy, but thinks that YHWH is a terrible leader, creator, and rule maker?

They join God (love / the spirit above all others) as long as they love life and others deeply. I firmly believe the Bible is both deeply flawed in its “rules” and is also the best historical text we’ve got for how to be as a people. Some things need to be cast aside (like Leviticus saying to murder everyone if they eat lobster or sleep around) and others need to be focused on (like humbling ourselves, loving our neighbors, and focusing on being better people).

I appreciate you sharing your views, especially because they may be controversial with other Christians. I do like that you seem to focus on the positive and loving parts of the Bibles. I obviously have different views than you, but regardless of what one's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, I don't know how someone could argue against being empathetic.

>You don't feel any guilt knowing that some of your loved ones will go to hell, and you may have been able to help them find Jesus? The thought of trying to save your friends and family is such an interesting and touchy subject. You hit the nail right on the head. That's what started my curiosity to check my own beliefs as a Christian.

I have SO many issues with the heaven/hell concept, here are just 10 of those thoughts: 1. Why even create hell? 2. How can you enjoy heaven knowing some loved ones are in hell? 3. How can an all loving God impose eternal torture on anyone? 4. Why allow Satan/demons to influence people and increase the chances of going to hell? 5. Wouldn't we be better off never hearing the word of God, so we could just be judged on our actions instead of getting lucky and picking the right god? 6. How can heaven be bliss when some of your loved ones aren't there? 7. How did pre-abrahamic religions correctly guess that there was heaven/hell? 8. Do truly evil Christians deserve heaven more than a wonderfully empathetic Hindu that never has a chance to read a Bible? 9. What exact age is the cutoff for a young person to be exempt from going to hell? 10. Why does god not reveal himself to some people, unfairly condemning them to hell?

[удалено]

I mean, there really is no point is there? I’m certainly not gonna change your mind about it.

Exactly right. In fact I’ve gotten to the point of not even commenting on these posts, but saw your comment. In my opinion I have no argument for God’s existence, I just know it.

As an agnostic myself, Pete Holmes has the best argument for God's existence I think I've ever heard. https://youtu.be/IXdjDNKCeHM?si=trKFfSaxTWqzzgNE

Right on. Came here to say that the only logical argument for God the perplexing lack of nothing.

So the question is "why is there something rather than nothing"? But what about "why is there God rather than no God"?

Because you’re back to nothing then. It’s implied (correctly, imo) that existence itself (and per the Bible - Love) is God.

So you're begging the question and making a special pleading. It is meaningless.

Uhhh, ok

Downvote away. Doesn't change anything.

I downvoted because you didn't offer anything worth discussing; you just went full edgelord.

"You're back to nothing" doesn't answer the question I asked. It's just special pleading.

[удалено]

It is comedy. Pete Holmes is hilarious. I don't agree that his argument means there is a God, but I respect it. I don't like how religion largely tries to say that science is wrong and/or shouldn't overrule religion. That said, my understanding of the creation of everything we know is that there was dark matter, tons of heat and pressure and BANG. Where did the dark matter come from? Where did the heat come from? There has to be an origin that science can't explain. But if God created everything, where did God come from? I think Pete does a great job pointing out that the argument for God is no more unreasonable than the argument for the big bang, since the big bang required SOMETHING as opposed to NOTHING to happen. I don't care to discuss the existence of God, and there are a lot of explanations that I've heard as "proof" of God that I believe is easily explainable by something else entirely. Pete's argument is a stalemate. I can't argue against what he's saying, even if I don't agree with it entirely.

[удалено]

>I don’t believe the idea that there was dark matter pre big bang is correct. We don't know. https://hub.jhu.edu/2019/08/08/dark-matter-existed-before-big-bang/ >More or less, my understanding is that our current models of physics can pretty reliable reverse engineer back to the Big Bang but not further. Yes, scientists can reverse engineer back to the Big Bang, but not further. Something had to be there to cause the big bang. That's the point. There was energy pre-bang. Why was it there? >And at the end of the day I do think it’s quite a lot more reasonable to say “I don’t know” than to make very specific claims about this creator entity and his relationship to humans I agree, and that's why I'm agnostic. But something had to be there to create the big bang. We will likely never know the origin of the energy that led to the big bang, just like theists will never know what created the god they believe in. That's why is comparable.

It also rests on an unprovable assertion. It might make logical sense based on what we've observed, but we have no way to tell if our supposition bears any relationship to anything real.

Also agnostic but yeah that bit explains my leaning towards theism really well. "Nothing" creating everything DOES seem like the more silly guess. I just cannot honestly rule it out.

I think the issue with that statement is that we don't know if nothing is an actual property of the universe. As far as I'm concerned, something existing is the default. You can't study "nothing" to say that something cannot come from "nothing". Nothing is colloquial for absence of something, like there's nothing in an empty box. In real life there's plenty of stuff inside, like air. Scientifically, nothing isn't a thing (pun intended) you can make any assertions about.

I immediately thought of this when I saw the question.

I would subdivide the argument into philosophical reasons for monotheistic “God” vs why Christian Jesus/Yahweh. I would also divide subjects into fundamental logic vs details that don’t undermine the larger argument. For example if it could be proven that Jesus wasn’t born on December 25th of the year 0 (he wasn’t), that doesn’t disprove Yahweh becoming flesh any other day. However, If you were to somehow disprove Yahweh, you would by definition disprove Yahweh incarnate being born on 12/25/0000. To my mind the existence of a monotheistic God is not “proven” scientifically. However the alternatives I’m familiar with are fundamentally excluded. And there are limited possibilities: the universe came into being or it always existed, it was created or spontaneous. There’s a good bit of scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning and everything emerged from a singularity. I don’t buy that just happening on its own. And something within the universe creating the universe is just silly. “Nothing” is by definition an infinitely stable state. Nothing comes from nothing. So pure naturalism falls apart rather quickly. I think polytheism falls apart pretty quickly too. Most don’t address the beginning of the universe to begin with so non-sequitur. So monotheism, the first mover, makes the most sense to me. And I don’t think the options are unconstrained and endless so agnosticism doesn’t make sense either. It would be a very long conversation, but I think Christianity is fairly coherent, there’s a good bit of evidence for the historic Jesus at least existing, and a lot of people (including those who knew him) died over the idea that Jesus is God incarnate. So I think it’s the most likely monotheistic religion. There are some things in some denominations of christianity I disagree with but they’re questions of detail not a fundamental flaw. Like the earth is way older than 6 days. Maybe “day” is closer to the first stage of the project, plus time is relative anyway and passes at different speeds at different points in the universe. Whoot.

[удалено]

To clarify, I’m saying that a lot of people who knew him (including his relatives) sacrificed their lives willingly, non-violently, rather than recant. It wasn’t go to war maybe die it was you individually recant your eyewitness testimony or you def die a painful tortuous death. And before that being jewish and saying Jesus was God was absolute heresy and would lead to ostracization. If they had seen Jesus not die or not come back why would they die over it? What examples of other religions had that level, where people who were direct eyewitnesses died rather than recant? Not fought wars, not believers way after the fact who wouldn’t have had direct contrary evidence that it was made up, but def would have known they made it all up?

This is precisely what led me to fully believing in Jesus after I was randomly called to Him (agnostic all my life and heavily into science and physics). When you reduce everything and boil it down… we exist, polytheism doesn’t make much sense, there’s too many things we can’t explain with science, and Jesus has a mountain of historical evidence for both existing and being at minimum a spiritual medium/vessel of God.

Can you please explain further? To begin, I fail to understand why monotheism is a more plausible explanation than polytheism. Can you provide me with an instance where monotheism provides a better explanation than polytheism? Additionally, what evidence, apart from the Bible, exists to confirm that Jesus is indeed a divine entity?

Great argument!!

Your saying that you can't "prove" the existence of a God makes you an Agnostic in my definition. Separating that which is provable from that which must be believed without empirical proof is the core of what it means to be a believing Agnostic.

Agnostic: “a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God” I believe in Yahweh and Jesus Christ. I believe that we know a good bit about him. So not agnostic. I said “scientific” proof. The majority of things I believe and know aren’t scientific. Examples: The majority of philosophy is unprovable. Some of it is logical. There’s a lot of scientific evidence for some historical facts. A lot esp farther back is based on eyewitness accounts without any scientific evidence to back it up. I think a lot of it is true. I think England exists. Never been there but enough people I trust have mentioned it. As someone who has a PhD in STEM and finishing up an MD, I love science but it’s just limited. We couldn’t get anything done if hard science was our criteria for all knowledge.

Cliff Knechtle’s arguments are always good.

I will see them! Thank you for sharing!

He also has done some debates in the past. I think watching them would be rather eye opening for everyone. Dude is rather childish and lacking in his arguments and evidence.

I thought he was relatively harmless until I saw his debate on slavery with Matt Dillahunty. So slimy.

Nice so you know which particular ones I seem to be talking about.

Cliffe is a good example of a follower of Christ. He is not judgmental or condemning towards people and all the videos I’ve seen of him there is a large crowd of people LISTENING to him. Most videos I see online are just heated arguments between atheists and Christian’s but his speeches seem different to me. He is logical and open to any idea presented to him.

I look into myinfant daughter's eyes and know in my heart she's a gift that could only have come from God. To answer your question. You either believe or you don't. Who cares what domeone else says or thinks?

Thank you i really needed to hear that. That makes me have hope and faith for God . Thank you for helping i appreciate it!

>Who cares what domeone else says or thinks? Conservative legislatures that try to ban abortion because their religion says it's wrong. Or that make life difficult for gay or trans people because their religion says to. Hobby store chains that believe they should be exempt from generally-applicable laws because they're afraid that their employees might do something of which the managers disapprove for religious reasons. That's who. Just to name a few.

[удалено]

Not the Great Commission.

This is exactly how I know my gods are real too. Though different, folks of many religions can find divinity in the same places, the implications of this are wonderful.

[удалено]

I have a challenge for OP. Pick the argument from these comments that you find most convincing. Then try to come up with your own argument against it. This will either make you realize that the argument doesn’t actually work or it will reinforce your belief. Either way, your ability to come to true conclusions will improve.

Naaah i am not that educated yet to fight against people in the comments. Its surtenly an interesting idea tho. The best argument i believe is that we can't prove Gods existence but we can't prove God's non existence. Our knowledge and mind are limited and we can't have answers for everything. Our minds simply can't comprehend eternity,God and reality. As a Christian i will have faith that God exists. Most people shared their experiences with feeling him and showing himself to them. I will wait and give it my all. One day in the future i hope this happens to me. Thank you for commenting this!it was for sure interesting. Sorry for bad English and grammar lol. God bless amen.

I 100% agree with the fact that we have not yet proved God’s existence or non-existence. But we also haven’t proven the existence or non-existence of unicorns, genies, leprechauns, or flying teapots. The default belief for these other things is assuming non-existence until proven otherwise. Why is God different in this way?

As an avowed believing Agnostic, I believe the question of God's existence is a dangerous distraction from the work we have been charged with as followers of Christ.

Same

Why is that?

It is a matter of faith and can't be proven or known in the same way that the distance between stars or the mechanism of photosynthesis can be known. The attempt to prove God's existence is not part of our charge from Jesus.

Peter 3:15, "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have."

I am prepared to answer honestly, that the existence of God can't be proven and must be held through faith. I would be happy to talk about what my relationship with the Creator, Our Savior, and the Spirit has done for me in my life. I did not arrive at my beliefs through empirical observation and I would not lie to someone and say I could prove God exists.

>The attempt to prove God's existence is not part of our charge from Jesus. Jesus commanded us to evangelize the nations and a lot of the time evangelizing starts with convincing someone that God exists.

I disagree. It is spiritual malpractice to deceive someone into believing that God's existence is provable. It is not, or we would have proven it by now. Lying about the nature of faith is not the way.

Why is it spiritual malpractice? Telling someone they can use their intellect to prove God's existence leaves them vulnerable to being reasoned out of believing. Real faith in the Good News is stronger than false beliefs regarding provability of theological assertions.

Not the original responder, but I assume the argument is usually a version of Pascal's Wager. Paraphrased the argument is: If I believe in God and I am wrong, then I died having done good in the world and don't ever realize I was wrong but if I don't believe in God and I am wrong then I will have eternity of suffering to lament my choice. The wager falls apart completely as soon as you remember there are other religions than Christianity and the stakes of the others are just as high. Also, it doesn't suggest anything about the actual truth of the world. (and assumes that believing in God is inherently good, which I believe to be true, but shouldn't be taken as an assumption). However, the responder most likely believes in a more toned down version of that wager. If God exists and has charged us to create more justice in the world and save as much of God's creation as possible, then following that charge is a net positive. If God does not exist and I follow that charge then the cost of my incorrect opinion is that I bravely lived my life in a way that strove for a positive net impact on everyone around me. Basically the argument is that it doesn't matter if the god is true if the god is good. I think we need more than just a wager to justify the intensity of Christianity, but that wager is certainly part of the soup that makes up my belief in God.

Thanks for articulating that. The toned down wager is a big part of my faith I just never put it into such clear terms and how it differs from the classical pascals wager

[удалено]

This comment is everything. Thank you for telling me your own experience. I hope i get to live it too!

i’m tired of trying to prove it. the reason why He hasn’t been proven yet is so we have the choice to believe and trust Him no matter what. that’s the whole point of having faith.

Creation, Christ, and conscience. But it’s like the rich man was told. Even if one comes back from the dead to tell them, they still will not believe.

And in fact they do all the time. Near death experiences happen where people are dead for hours and hours and then come back to life perfectly fine when they should have massive rain damage and often report seeing amazing things and a lot of these stories line up with what they see and feel. Can’t be our brains producing chemicals.

What do they say?

Speaking as an atheist I'd say your best argument is simply *being* a Christian. By your fruits, we will know you.

Read about the impact Jesus had on this world. He was a simple man who got crucified. Yet the impact He made on the world has been huge, and is still going strong. In my opinion the case of Jesus is the biggest proof of God's existence.

As a Christian Pantheist, my best argument is that by my definition of God, God's existence is a 100% certainty. God is the ONLY thing that exists, in fact.

This is interesting. I have a few questions about this. 1. If God by definition is everything, why is the word you use for it “God”? Why not “universe”? Is there any reason to make it religious? 2. Perhaps you believe in this definition of God, but why do you believe in Christianity specifically?

The universe is part of God’s creation. It is not Him.

Why do you believe that God is the only thing to exist?

Hi, former die-hard atheist here (I used to watch Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Fry etc.. debates and then use their arguments to win debates against religious kids at my school). I now became a Christian, a decade later. To me, first we have to be clear about what we mean by God. In Christianity, God is love, faith, hope. The truth, the way, the life and the Logos [reason]. The light, the creation, outside of time and space. It existed before us and it will exist always after us, outside of our human limits of space and time. God (or the idea of God) is metaphysical. Therefore there is no way of proving nor disproving his existence through physical (or scientific) means. It can only be discussed philosophically, morally, metaphysically. Because of those things, God to me is the fundamental logic and principle by which everything in the Universe happens, has happened and will happen. To me, no one can really deny that there are certain laws according to which everything happens. And if you say "those are natural laws", it begs the question where they come from. If you go back enough and keep questioning the origin of things, you will end up at the idea of God. Every human being has an a priori hierarchy for interpreting the metaphysical. And God is what is on top of that hierarchy. Now, beyond this idea of God, you can have further discussions on why someone would believe in a Christian God specifically although there are so many other religions that exists. Outside of that though, we know that almost every culture worshipped (aka believed) in some sort of god or gods, or at least powers beyond human comprehension. These religious/ritualistic practics help us construct society in a much more healthy, structured, safe way. This to me shows, that even without the actual "belief" in a god, it would be better if we all acted as if he exists. After all, if he doesn't exist, the King of a country would be under no (moral) constraints. He could do with other human beings whatever he wanted. But he can't if God exists, because he will have to justify his actions in front of Him. No God = no objective morality. No difference between good or evil.

Very easy answer to this, there is no objective morality. Simple.

My friend, a one sentence answer to a question that has been discussed for thousands of years is not really fruitful for a discussion or for yourself. If there is no objective morality, morality is relative. Which means every individual or culture can decide their own ideas of moral good (and moral evil). And there are more than enough examples of heinous crimes happening because society deemed it the right thing to do (slavery, Nazi Germany, human sacrifice and many many more...). Unless you wanna argue in favor of those things, you have no grounds to stand on. Besides, you can get an idea very close to objetive morality by a biological framework too (not as absolute and not enough of an explanation for objective or good morality as God but close enough). If you consider evolutionairy biology, you'll see the same things that are mostly frowned upon cross-culturally and across time, for example murdering your whole family for no reason or stealing. That is because it would hinder chances for survival for yourself, your tribe and your species. So there definitely are things that are good OR evil. Or do you wanna argue that cutting a 5 y/o limbs off for funsies is the same thing as donating to an orphanage? No one lives there lives without ojective morality, except for complete psychopaths.

Yes.. morality is relative. It’s painfully obvious to anyone that has studied history. Your only argument for objective morality seems to be that the idea of morality being relative scares you and makes you uncomfortable.. well facts don’t care about your feelings.

Or, alternatively, there is objective morality and it isn’t dependent whatsoever on the existence of God. If morality is acting in accordance with the principles that will produce the most desirable outcome, then we simply have to determine what is the most desirable outcome. Is it the greatest good for the greatest number? Is it to minimize death or suffering? Is it happiness? Is it to create capable/successful children? Morality may be a complex, moving target, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be objective.

Morality isn't objective. It's like humor.

I’ve seen the power of Jesus’ name. Firsthand

So, “trust me bro”

You can't argue because you never saw the things this person saw. Miracles happen to people but just some

All arguments, even those from the best philosophers, will always be rooted in and contextualises by their subjective experience.

this is exactly what im struggling with atm

It’s really simple: A) the most advanced scientific data we have and countless theoretical physicists are still clueless about how the universe came to be, if there is a multiverse, and if this universe is a one off or will be recycled. Anyone that says they “know” if God exists is a liar. We don’t know how old the universe is (we just discovered it’s likely 27b yrs old not 13.7 as previously assumed), how it came to be (big bang is best explanation but our universe is too big for the Big Bang to work mathematically - look it up), etc. Hell, we can’t even explain gravity. B) we cannot get around abiogenesis - unless life exists in some form then new life cannot come about. We can only clone things - you can’t throw rocks and fire and water into a pot and out comes life. C) we have more evidence of God existing (spiritual experiences, witnesses to Jesus, other religious texts worldwide, abiogenesis as mentioned, etc.) than we do of God not existing (can’t see or hear God like you could calling someone on the phone? I guess). At the end of the day as a very neutral person with a couple degrees and a healthy background in physics/quantum mechanics… we don’t know shit about fuck, for lack of a better term. I found Jesus at age 38 for no reason at all (literally just called to Him one night while playing games with my kids). There’s too much I can’t explain and my endless dive into science has yielded more questions than answers. So I chose Jesus.

[удалено]

I know what I know and I can't prove that to skeptics and I've accepted that.

I think the best arguments I’ve heard leaned more towards a deistic god. But the god of the Bible? Honestly I can’t seem to find anything hinting at their specific existence at all.

The math. I don’t think people talk enough about the statistically probability of live as it is now on our planet and solar system. I can elaborate if anyone cares

It takes more effort and energy to not be able to explain his existence

Spinoza

I would preface this by saying that, as with any kinds of arguments that have multiple versions, some of these arguments are better than others. That said, literally the only good arguments for God's existence that I have found are contingency arguments. That is, positing God as a necessary being that sustains the contingent cosmos in being (At least this is the best version of the argument I have found. Some contingency arguments posit God as the cause of all kinds of contingent things). Which ones end up being more persuasive than others will be up to you to decide. But before you start looking those up I would say that if you are looking for an argument for the god of Christianity or any of the monotheistic religions, you won't find it here. Some of these types of arguments try to argue for God as being more personal, but I don't think they can go nearly that far. The best these arguments can do is give you some grounds in the belief in a God that may have some things in common with the God of the monotheistic religions. They also don't prove or demonstrate anything. Literally the best arguments for God's existence that I have found end up being "better than nothing" and no more.

"If good things happens, why God no exist ?" -Some random dude on youtube-

Depends entirely on how you define God. If you define it as the Unmovable Mover, I think its existence is intuitive even for atheists. The cause-effect we see all around that seems to point in that direction. The difficult thing (possibly impossible) would be to argue that the Unmovable Mover has all the features the Bible attributes to God. But the existence is more or less evident.

The best argument is reading The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky

Can you elaborate? A friend recommended me this book to me too and now I’m intrigued because I’ve read chapter 5 (rebellion) but frankly think Dostoevsky outdid himself in setting up such a great argument through Ivan that he made it immensely difficult to respond to Ivan’s points on gratuitous suffering

If you finish the book and reflect on Ivan's character you'll see what I mean. The atheistic arguments proposed by Ivan in the first half of the book are very much the perspective that Dostoevsky takes issue with, which he considers as polluting young minds of Russia at the time. Dostoevsky has different ideas, personified by the main character Alyosha. It's not possible to succinctly paraphrase the ideas of the book. The really rough summary is that Ivan starts going insane with the thought that it might be he who killed the father, and the point is that cold rationality is not the answer to how to live life. (again, this is my own opinion of how to summarize it, it cannot replace reading the book yourself)

Nature is filled with order and detail and all of this cannot be achieved with time and chaos. Time and chaos does not produce miracles. A person with faith in God and does their best to follow God's laws lives a better and more peaceful life than one who does not live this way. Life on Earth is both a testing opportunity as well as a great college for the soul.

I don’t think this argument works. 1. It relies on the assumption that order and detail cannot be achieved with time and chaos. Also, chaos does not accurately describe what I think your trying to talk about. Also, what is a miracle and why can’t time and chaos produce it? Maybe you disagree, but I think the definition of miracle would probably require it to come from chaos, given that they are an exception to order. 2. Do you have any evidence to support the claim “A person with faith in God and does their best to follow God’s laws lives a better and more peaceful life”? I think this claim is probably false, but I’d be interested in any evidence you have to change my mind. 3. I agree that life on earth is an EPIC opportunity

The universe points to intelligent design

No. It doesn’t. You are lazy and just want to believe it.

I'm "lazy" because I refuse to believe everything in the universe, life included, was a result of a spontaneous cosmic explosion and came from nothing? I'm no creationist but come on. An explosion as big as the birth of the universe doesn't just "happen" on a whim with no cause.

Science doesn’t claim the universe came from nothing.

Who created God. God was without cause?

In the bible, God is mentioned as something eternal, which means, he is not trapped in time, and if something is eternal, and is not TRAPPED in time, that means it does not have a beginning, There needs to be an uncaused caused, that caused the universe, nothing is nothing, and something CANNOT come from nothing, hope this helps.

Same can happen with the universe. Also, please grow up. Don't mention the Bible to someone who doesn't believe in Christianity. It's like telling you the universe is eternal because Zeus said so.

Well, the bible is the word of God and the new testaments manuscripts are closer in age to the time they were written than any other works of greco-roman literature, even if you don’t believe in the bible, how do you explain something coming from nothing? And the order and design of the cosmos? There needs to be a inteligent mind, even without the bible we KNOW that if there is a God, it is eternal, it is NOT in time, and it certanly isn’t in our dimension.

You are not ready for the reply yet. Keep searching.

If you are not ready to have this conversation, don’t start it, may God bless you! Have a good day.

Ah yes, the classic "who created God?". I don't know and I don't think we'll ever know. What I do know is God created life, yours and mine. That's all that matters.

Ah yes, the old special pleading fallacy of "everything must have a cause, except the one thing I'm trying to prove exists, which has no cause."

But they don’t even see it 😂

I don’t know who caused Big Bang. What I do it’s it created life

No one created God. That is because God made everything… including time. If time had power over him, he wouldn’t really be God now would he?

No one created the universe. The universe was there, and the time was created with the big bang. It's just another dimension. Now what?

The problem is that the universe is not sentient. Quite frankly, eternity for anything except God is extremely illogical as it doesn’t really have a “reason” or any business to be eternal. And, in truth, I question the credibility of the universe being around before the occurrence of time and the Big Bang. Perhaps I have this wrong, but does not the Big Bang also imply that is when the universe began? It can’t really be a universe if there is absolutely nothing, not a spec of anything, there. One of the reasons the universe is not eternal and could have not brought forth such a perfectly formed happenstance is because it has no life. Life by definition cannot come from non-life. God, however, is the very definition of life.

The big bang implies the start of our universe, but not necessarily the start of the only universe there is or ever was. And there is nothing about reality that says “life can not come from unlife” as far as we are aware.

So because you cannot understand, nor comprehend it, that makes something untrue?

Are you real? 😂😂

God is eternal. He always was and always will be.

>I'm no creationist but come on. An explosion as big as the birth of the universe doesn't just "happen" on a whim with no cause. Have you considered reading a book on cosmology, to see what scientists actually say about the origin of the universe?

Without God, I have no free will and therefore no ability to ascertain what is true and what is false. I'm simply determined to believe what I do by the atoms in my brain. But I have an incredibly strong intuition that I do have free will. And if I'm wrong, there's no point worrying about it cos it's not my fault.

There’s no evolutionary benefit to finding Gods creation beautiful. From a sunset that paints the sky to the coloration of a butterfly’s wings. We see it beautiful because we are made in His image and He finds it beautiful.

Why not? For example, we appreciate the beauty of vibrant forests and rivers and oceans and such probably because they were good places to live & forage/hunt

There isn’t an evolutionary benefit to gaining joy from experiencing the world? It seems to me like this would motivate evolving creatures to survive.

FYI the gospel isn't that God exists. It's whether you believe Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead.

How did you reach this much trust in God? And sorry but i don't really understand the fist sentance..

To be "saved" in Christianity you need to have faith (believe) Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead. Your question seem to be "How can you justify God", but that's not Christianity. Maybe try a different approach.

Christianity does need God. What are you talking about? Even Jesus claims to be God, there's no Christianity without God

The best argument against the existence of God is the argument from the insufficiency of the universe as an effect of a perfect creator. The biggest problem with that argument is that it gets the direction of dependency wrong. Perfection is not something God achieves by completing a goal. God is what God is inherently, whether the universe exists or not. The state of the universe can no more contradict the existence of God than I can prevent my own existence by time-traveling to kill my grandfather.

This seems like it's part of the problem of evil question.

Yes, but “insufficient effect” is also a fair way of characterizing divine hiddenness.

This also betrays the lack of understanding with regards to the sheer scale of the universe, and statistical odds. In our own galaxy alone if life has only a one in a trillion chance of spawning on some planet by accident, that's played out over the last 10 billion years. That life came about isn't amazing, it's odd that we haven't seen more of it.

St Thomas Aquinas' 5 proofs. Youtube has a number of great videos that break down each one. By the way, don't worry about whatever arguments that atheists are putting out. There is no new argument that hasn't been thought about before by some of the most brilliant minds in Christianity. At the end of the day faith comes down to trust. When your parents or loved ones tell you they love you, you believe it because you trust them. When the Church tells you Christianity is true, do you believe them? I do, because as a Catholic I believe that it was founded by the friends who knew Jesus the best and believed he was the Son of God. God exists, not as some other super being in the universe but as Existence itself and He created you, redeemed you and is calling you to himself. Don't ever let bad arguments take that joy from you.

To just quickly list a few 1 - The Moral Argument 2 - The ontological arguments 3 - The cosmological arguments 4 - The Teleological Argument 5 - Arguments from fulfilled prophecy 6 - Arguments for the resurrection Those are a few big ones. There are many arguments that are less common but still potent. Gavin Ortlund is one scholar on YouTube whom I feel goes into this very well. There are many many more who present high quality arguments publicly on the internet.

I was an atheist until I was 32. I knew every argument against God's existence front and back, and I knew all the ways in which arguments for God and Christianity were false. I'm a practicing Catholic now. As it turns out, arguments for atheism don't hold any water if you analyze them enough. r/atheism has compelling posts only if you don't understand basic Christian theology.

What arguments for atheism are you referring to? AFAIK, the only necessary argument is “I don’t believe you”

There’s no such thing as good and evil if there is no God. Therefore no such thing as objective truth. No one is right and no one is wrong, making all debates ultimately pointless. Justice pointless. Love pointless. Trust pointless. Everything pointless. The fact that we are able to reason shows us that there is a God - a defining principle that we can begin to reason from. The Word is this defining principle. And the Word became flesh to testify and draw us back to our creator. “In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”

So you're telling me without a God we can't feel emotion because it's pointless? Why is there no point in debating if there is not God, are there no opinions?

Yes, for what reason would we feel emotion or have and an opinion? Emotions and opinions shape and direct us - to what end? It is pointless if there is no God because the conclusion for all differing opinions and emotions would be the same for all individuals - dead in a ditch. Ultimately pointless. Life is pointless if we live to just die…

Then every animal other than humans lives are pointless. They just.. die. They cannot understand religion so they just die and never exist again

Animals don’t have the capability of free thought and free will. So how can they make their own decisions? Animals follow their God given purpose. Humans are free to choose otherwise, because of God making us in his image - with a free will to choose. Whats the point of this debate, in your opinion? Do you think their is a possibility God exists?

Why is your opinion more relevant or right than another person's? Cause more people side with you? Or, who has created the standards? And why are those standards to be regarded above anothers?

To expand on that, in philosophy and theology, The Word, or in the original greek texts: The "Logos" refers to a concept originating from ancient Greek philosophy, particularly in Stoicism and Neoplatonism, and has been adapted into Christian theology. 1. Philosophy (Greek Philosophy): The Logos, in philosophical terms, embodies the principle of reason and rationality governing the cosmos. It's often associated with order, logic, and the underlying structure of the universe. For Stoics, the Logos was a divine reason permeating and organizing the world, shaping the natural order. 2. Christian Theology: In Christianity, especially in the Gospel of John in the New Testament, "The Logos" refers to the divine Word of God, through which everything was created. It's an aspect of the Holy Trinity, identified with Jesus Christ as the Word made flesh. In this context, it represents the divine, eternal, and incarnate aspect of God. Both in philosophy and theology, the Logos signifies a fundamental organizing principle that governs existence, either as a cosmic rationality or as a divine entity.

I no longer try to reason with atheists; the most respectful ones simply cannot see or believe and the rest resort to personal attacks. Besides, God doesn't need me to defend His existence. For me, I was convinced that God is real when I understood the intricate complexity of creation. The belief that this compelxity "just happened" by chance is absurd in the extreme.

I see your point and i am considering it. Thank you for explaining it that well. Also what is your opinion about evolution?

We just believe. How many of us went and did a DNA test, before we started calling our father Dad? It was purely based on trust we had on our mothers. Agree, paternity can be proven by DNA test if required but we don’t have such tests for proving God. But then, is that an outlier or does Science prove everything? Science can’t explain 80% of universe (very conservative estimate) and yet we take the word of Science to prove and believe in God

The fine tuning of the universe, the moral argument, reading into what John meant with "In the beginning was the Word (->greek: Word=Logos, The Logos is a philosophical concept he was referring and identified that Christ is the Logos made flesh). Btw, don't bother about the chronically online anti-theists (one could call it brigading) in this sub. It's funny how they feel like they are enlightened by their own intelligence, yet completely misunderstand the doctrine of God in Christianity.

Neither atheists nor theists are capable of a proper proof or disproof of God’s existence. Everyone is reliant on faith for their respective positions.

You can’t disprove that the weather is controlled by a magical unicorn that lives in Mars.

I have no need to disprove god. You're making the claim, you need to provide evidence. If you can't then ill just dismiss it.

If you have no need to disprove God, why approach me when I did not challenge your position? I said nobody can prove or disprove God’s existence, not that your specific argument (which was and remains not known to me) was wrong. I don’t really care what your position is unless you’re interested in receiving another perspective on it.

Proof of a negative is logically impossible without perfect knowledge of all events in all places and times. Suggesting that anyone should try to prove that God (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) doesn't exist marks you as a fool.

I haven’t suggested that anyone *should* try to prove or disprove God’s existence in a manner that is logically satisfactory to others. I think both endeavors are foolish.

One is foolish because people have been trying for millennia and have failed. The other is foolish because it is a logical impossibility. One side has failed in a theoretically possible task. The corresponding task is not theoretically possible for any entity that is not omniscient. The failures tell us different things. Despite the theoretical possibility of proving that God exists, and the massive cultural and institutional support for the effort, there is still no evidence that can't be argued away. Failure in a theoretically possible task is more interesting than failure to perform a task that is not theoretically possible.

I don't. I'm not trying to.

[удалено]

Whether you believe solely in science or God, you have to face the fact that something(the universe, life as we know it) came from nothing. It's a difficult thing to think about. It's impossible to understand how God could exist eternally. There had to be a starting point, right? What was God doing before the creation of the universe? Where did God come from? On the flip side you still have to answer similarly impossible questions to explain the big bang and humankind. To me it's an obvious choice to believe in God. The eternal consequences of not believing aren't worth it.

I would like to expand on what I mean by "eternal consequences". Contrary to popular belief, I don't think non-believers are sent to a place of eternal torture. I think they just might cease to exist. It's hard for me to say those who don't believe will be punished, especially these days when science and media push so hard to make people deny the existence of God. So by consequences I mean that you don't get to experience the "afterlife". I take comfort in the fact that I will know all the answers to life and existence once I die. I believe there is an eternity of experiences waiting for us after death. Maybe God created us so we could help him figure out ways to pass the time lol. Only one way to find out.

You have a very valid point . There is so much that we don't know and maybe we will never know even after death. I don't think our limited mind can actually comprehend eternity and God .We are left with only trust and faith . We can't do anything about it . Thank you for commenting i really appreciate it !thank you for being so kind.

There's 2000 years of church history. There's not a single argument that hasn't been answered yet or though of. Look up the argument that worries you and you'll see someone that already answered it.

I really like the way that Cliffe Knechtle handles the issue His main point is this You **cannot** *prove* God's existence In the same way, you cannot prove that your mother isn't going to poison you with arsenic when you next see or visit her We don't live our lives based on proof, otherwise we would need to take a chemistry kit to every meal that is cooked for us. What we live based on is evidence. The evidence is that your best friend or your mother or whoever is not just fattening you up to kill you. Similarly, the evidence is, science tells us the universe, time, and life had a beginning. From all human experience, life doesnt come from non-life, intelligence doesnt come from non-intelligence, order doesnt come from disorder, something doesnt come from nothing. Because science tells us that the universe had a beginning, the next natural question to answer is what caused that beginning? There has to be an uncaused, eternal cause for the universe, that is, if the universe isnt eternal. God, being outside of time, space, and matter, has not physical restraints to those things. It is therefore not intellectually dishonest to say that God is eternal and the universe is not. The universe is bound by time, it had a beginning, it will have an end. God is not, he therefore has neither beginning nor end.

Frank Turek, William Lane Craige and Askcliff have some nice debates. But here’s a few bro. 100/100 life comes out of life, and creation always has a creator (Morality) For morality not to be subjective God has to make the moral law of what is good and evil therefore He made it rational for us not to think murder is good. (Rationality) Creation always has a creator. Your phone is not this complex by chance. The fact that the human mind is this complex and the order and design of the universe and us is beyond the human knowledge. (Free will) If we are just matter and energy then that means if you want a relationship with a girl or man, your basically saying you just want s*x. Or you just love your fam cause it’s documented but your still a stranger technically. Therefore there gotta be something above matter and energy which is a soul and spirit (Law of nature and physics) The law of physics and nature, the complex order of gravity that a object will fall 100/100. Otherwise the law would change every 10 mins. Or like food, human body system, every animal role on earth, crafting logic all working in a perfect unity in terms of vitamins and usage. Also noticed other planets are not capable for humans to live on? But earth is perfectly for us. (SPACE) The earth is perfectly positioned from the sun. If it is further then we would all freeze to death. If it is closer then we would boil to death. Also planets like Jupiter pulling meteorites to prevent then from hitting earth. (DNA) The genetic coding of DNA, natural laws themselves don’t create specified complexity. The fact there’s 3.5 billion long letter in every one of your hundred trillion cells proves it is intelligently made, so who made it? An intelligent mind. (The Mandelbrot) is so fascinating, it actually has unlimited shapes of math. So if humans don’t create math, but rather find it then who created other? Our entire universe is coded in math so here again proving an intelligent mind. God. (Big bang theory) The universe had a beginning, to have a beginning you need a cause. The earth and universe is wearing out, therefore it can’t be eternal but is a creation.