10 Scientists Who Proved (?) That God Exists

To understand whether God exists, you must first decide what God is. If we take clearly formulated definitions (for example, from dictionaries), then it is possible to prove the presence or absence of a God corresponding to these definitions. Such definitions are usually accepted by most people. If a person invents his own and maximally non-specific definition, then it is impossible to prove either the presence or absence of such a God, since if we get a conclusion about the presence or absence of God, the definition may change and then we will not receive an answer to the question. As is the case with the truth of the scriptures, in this article we will primarily consider the problematic of the existence of the Christian God.

In addition, it is difficult to prove the non-existence of even the most incredible entities - for example, a porcelain teapot flying around the Sun or unicorns, so it is necessary to prove the existence of God. However, we can summarize the indirect evidence of its existence or absence, and based on their correlation, conclude that it exists or does not exist with an extremely high probability.

What is God

According to the Great Russian Encyclopedia, God is the Supreme in the religions of the world, creating and arranging the world, giving things, beings and persons their existence, measure, meaning and law. Religious teachings, united by the principle of theism, affirm the personal existence of the Supreme, his personal relationship (love) to created beings and the cosmos as a whole, his dialogical self-disclosure in acts of Revelation1. Ozhegov’s dictionary says that this is the supreme omnipotent being who rules the world or (in case of polytheism) one of such beings2. The most complete list of definitions is provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, among which there are those that interest us:

1. God is the supreme or basic entity. For example:

A: A being of absolute power, wisdom and virtue, who is worshiped (in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism) as the creator and ruler of the Universe;

B: The incorporeal divine power ruling over all as the eternal Spirit, the infinite mind (in Christian Science);

2. A being or object that is worshiped as having supernatural qualities and abilities; one who controls a certain aspect or part of reality3.

The Orthodox Encyclopedia does not give a clear formulation of what God is, but it lists a list of qualities that he possesses: he is alive, omnipotent, virtuous, merciful, wise, he is the creator of the world and can control the events that take place in it4. We can thus conclude that God is a being who is the creator and ruler of the Universe, omnipotent, virtuous, merciful, wise.

Absence of a “black swan”

As you know, the statement “all swans are white” can be refuted by the first example of a black swan. The thesis that God does not exist can be refuted by the very first indisputable evidence of his existence - the recorded manifestation of God’s activity and evidence of his involvement in this activity. Roughly speaking, if God appeared to people once and demonstrated supernatural action, it would disprove claims that he does not exist. If this were clearly stated, the question of the existence of God would be settled once and for all. But we don’t have such a “black swan”. In the article on the truth of the scriptures, we already noted that there is no reason to believe that Jesus Christ performed any miracles. And the absence of any practical data that would confirm the existence of God is an argument in favor of his absence.

If I were to assert that a porcelain teapot revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit between the Earth and Mars, no one would be able to refute my statement, if I added prudently that the teapot is too small to be detected even with the most powerful telescopes. But if I had further stated that since my statement cannot be refuted, a reasonable person has no right to doubt its truth, then I would rightly be shown that I am talking nonsense. However, if the existence of such a teapot was affirmed in ancient books, its authenticity was repeated every Sunday, and this idea was drummed into the heads of schoolchildren from childhood, then disbelief in its existence would seem strange, and the doubter would seem worthy of the attention of psychiatrists in the enlightened era, and earlier - attention Inquisition5.

Bertrand Russell

EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

The completion of the process of formation of philosophy as an independent science independent of religion, which began in the Renaissance, and the finally established substantive differentiation of the areas of philosophy and religion determined the general direction and specificity of the teachings on the evidence of the existence of God in the philosophy of modern times. Understanding philosophy as a science made special demands on evidence and made it part of philosophy. Since the 17th century these proofs in philosophy are built in connection with the doctrines of human cognitive abilities, the concept of consciousness and the method of cognition developed on this basis. Until the 1st third of the 19th century. in most philosophical teachings (with the exception of deistic and atheistic), faith in the autonomous human mind, in its ability to understand and transform the world, still did not have an absolute character and assumed faith in God as a matter of course and needed divine sanction to justify the legitimacy of the claims of the human mind to absolute knowledge.

D. b. God are becoming necessary prerequisites for building a new Europe itself. philosophy and are directly related to its 3 main principles, the scientific justification of which required the recognition of the existence of God the Creator. These attitudes, consciously or unconsciously shared by the thinkers of the era, must include: belief in the rational meaning of existence, which could only be justified by the existence of God; faith in the possibility of speculative and experimental knowledge of existence through consciousness, the basis of which could only be the similarity (and in some cases even identity) of human and divine thinking; the belief in the Godlikeness of man, adopted from Christianity, which presupposes a necessary connection between creation and the Creator and thereby substantiates the moral world order in humanity in contrast to the dominance of natural principles in the animal kingdom.

Within the boundaries of the rationalistic paradigm, common to all of modern Europe. philosophy, 2 methods of cognition of existence were developed: rationalistic - based on reason (R. Descartes, T. Hobbes, B. Spinoza, G. V. Leibniz, I. G. Fichte, G. W. F. Hegel, etc.) and sensualistic - based on sensory knowledge (F. Bacon, J. Locke, J. Berkeley, E. B. de Condillac, C. A. Helvetius, D., etc.); These methods were associated with both the attitude towards evidence of the existence of God in general (positive or negative), and the special methods chosen for this evidence - rationalistic, associated primarily with the doctrine of the internal experience of thought, and sensualistic, starting from the external experience of studying nature and the world generally; this did not exclude supporters of one and other methods from using the arguments of their opponents in constructing evidence.

F. Bacon in the book. “Experiments, or Moral and Political Instructions” in ch. “On Atheism” presents arguments proving the existence of God: 1) a cosmological and teleological argument related to the natural knowledge of God and starting from the study of the nature of things; according to Bacon, “when the human mind contemplates secondary causes scattered everywhere, it can sometimes stop at them and go no further; but when he has embraced their entire chain, united and connected with each other, he inevitably soars upward, to Providence and the Divine” (Bacon. P. 386); 2) moral and religious. the argument is from human nature; if the bodily nature connects a person with the animal kingdom, then the spiritual nature testifies to the connection of a person with God (Ibid. p. 388); Additional confirmation of this is Bacon’s consideration that “atheism [exists] rather on the lips than in the heart of man” (Ibid. p. 387).

R. Descartes repeatedly argued that the essence of God is incomprehensible; in a letter to M. Mersenne dated December 31. 1640 he wrote: “Concerning the sacrament of the Trinity, I, together with St. Thomas, I believe that it belongs exclusively to the realm of faith and cannot be comprehended in a natural way” (Descartes. Vol. 2. P. 610). The rationalistic proofs of the existence of God created by Descartes had an exclusively philosophical meaning and were intended to substantiate the reliability of knowledge about the natural and moral world, since, in his deep conviction, the existence of God is the only and unconditional guarantee of the existence of truth in the world. This dependence of truth on God was a hidden premise of Descartes’ famous doctrine of methodological doubt, which was not understood by many. contemporaries and brought wrath on the author due to the fact that in this teaching, in search of an undoubted basis for knowledge, sensory knowledge, theoretical knowledge, including mathematical proofs, and, moreover, the existence of God, the existence of “ourselves” were consistently questioned; and when it seemed that one could doubt the existence of everything and nothing is certain, it was discovered that it was impossible to doubt the existence of doubt itself, understood as thought; hence the position cogito, ergo sum (“I think, therefore I exist”) followed, and then it was on the basis of cogito as a necessary prerequisite for true knowledge that the proof of the existence of God was generally built.

The main difficulties in understanding the Cartesian proofs of the existence of God were associated with the doctrine of cogito. Descartes himself contributed to this, creating with psychological examples and popular explanations the impression that we are talking about an empirical person with soul and body, while by “I think” (cogito) he himself understood pure thinking (consciousness).

Having read the text of the blj. on the advice of friends. Augustine from the book. “On the City of God”: “If I am deceived, then therefore I already exist; for he who does not exist cannot, of course, be deceived; therefore, I exist if I am deceived” (Aug. De civ. Dei. XI 26), Descartes was very happy when he saw Augustine’s support for his proofs of the existence of God. In a letter to A. Kolvius dated October 14. 1640 Descartes wrote: “He really uses this position to prove the certainty of our existence and then to show that in us there is a certain image of the Trinity, since we exist, we know that we exist, and, finally, we love this existence and this is existing knowledge; however, I use the same position to make it clear that it is I, the thinker, who is an immaterial substance that does not contain anything corporeal: and these are completely different things” (Descartes. Vol. 2. p. 609).

The understanding of “I” as a “thinking thing”, the doctrine of clear and distinct perceptions (intuitions) as criteria of truth and ways of distinguishing between the subjective and objective contents of consciousness, the developed concept of innate ideas allowed Descartes in his works “Reflections on First Philosophy” and “Principles of Philosophy” develop a whole system of evidence with numerous branches and options. This evidence is based on an ontological argument. According to Descartes, the idea of ​​God is innate to human consciousness, it is not given to man through sensations, cannot be created as the idea of ​​a perfect being by us as imperfect beings (“doubting”), in other words, “I” cannot be the cause of the idea of ​​God, therefore God Himself is the final cause of the idea of ​​God; or in other variants: “I cannot have the idea of ​​an infinite substance due to the fact that I myself am finite, unless this idea comes from some truly infinite substance” (Descartes. Vol. 2. P. 38) ; or from the presence in our consciousness of the idea of ​​God (i.e. the effect) one should ascend to the cause of this idea in our consciousness as having a greater “objective reality”, i.e. to God Himself (Ibid. pp. 33, 41).

Descartes's proof of the existence of God is quite simple. Denying the sophistic idea of ​​the need to “separate existence (existentia) from the essence (essentia)” of God, Descartes was convinced that the idea of ​​God “extracted from one’s own consciousness (ex cogitatione)” (an idea, not an incomprehensible essence; Descartes. Vol. 1. P. 321) allows us to deduce from it the existence of God (He. T. 2. P. 53-54). To this reasoning, Descartes, discussing a number of objections, added other arguments: it is impossible “to think of God (i.e., the most perfect being) devoid of existence (i.e., some kind of perfection)” (Ibid. p. 54); “from the fact that we cannot think of God without existence, it follows that existence is inseparable from Him, and therefore He really exists” (Ibid.); and also: “We were created not by ourselves, but by God, and therefore He exists” (Ibid. Vol. 1. P. 322), etc., including cosmological and historical.

Before publishing “Reflections on First Philosophy” (or in another translation - “Metaphysical Reflections”), Descartes himself and through M. Mersenne turned to a number of philosophers and theologians with a request to familiarize themselves with the contents of the work. Objections written by T. Hobbes, A. Arno, P. Gassendi and others, in which significant attention was paid to the problems of proving the existence of God, were published in the 1st ed. "Reflections on First Philosophy" along with Descartes' answers to them.

Extensive objections belong to the Catholics. priest and the philosopher P. Gassendi, who had a negative attitude towards Descartes’ rationalism, as well as his doctrine of innate ideas and methodological doubt. Gassendi wrote “that the original concept of God was received thanks to divine revelation, when God showed Himself to the first people He created, and from here this knowledge has already spread...” (Gassendi. P. 606).

Among T. Hobbes’s objections, the main one is related to the sensationalistic interpretation of the idea and concerns the rejection of the Cartesian understanding of the idea and, accordingly, the idea of ​​God. In his interpretation of the Nicene Creed, Hobbes also turned to the ontological argument and about (Hobbes. T. 2. P. 549). Believing that the existence of God can be comprehended using natural reason, Hobbes traditionally associated D. b. God “with the study of the entire sequential series of causes” (Ibid. p. 83), with the knowledge of “the primary and eternal cause of all things” (Ibid.), i.e., with the “cause of the world” (Ibid. Vol. 1. pp. 435, 446; T. 2. P. 281), and in the spirit of Aristotle was inclined to explain this first cause as a “universal prime mover” (He. T. 1. P. 401; cf.: T. 2. P. 83). In responses to objections, Descartes accused Gassendi of unprofessionalism and “the use of oratorical techniques” (Descartes. T. 2. P. 273), and regarding Hobbes’s remarks he wrote that “he did not find a single correct conclusion in all these objections” (Ibid. P. 150).

B. Spinoza, according to religion. in his views, occupying a position between Judaism and Christianity, he identified God with substance or with the immaterial nature of all things. In op. “Ethics”, built on evidence, in Theorem 7 he argued that “the nature of substance is inherent in existence,” and proved it with an argument known since the time of Xenophanes: “Substance cannot be produced by anything else,” supplementing with ontological proof: “So, it will be the cause of itself, that is, its essence necessarily contains existence” (Spinoza, pp. 364-365). Having proved the existence of substance, Spinoza in Theorem 11 gave 3 proofs of the existence of God: in the 1st (based on the ontological argument) he proceeded from the impossibility of conceiving the non-existence of God, since this contradicts his essence; in the 2nd, discussing the question of the need for a basis for existence or non-existence, he concluded that if “there can be no basis or reason that prevents the existence of God or destroys His existence, then... He exists” (Ibid. P. 369) ; in the 3rd, considering existence as an ability, and non-existence as an inability, he concluded on the basis of the existence of finite temporary beings that God exists, for otherwise it would be necessary to assert that nothing exists (Ibid. p. 370).

N. Malebranche, Catholic. priest, author of a number of religions. works, in which he combined Cartesianism with the ideas of the blessed. Augustine and taught about the mystical (“contemplative”) vision of all things in God, in the book. “The Search for Truth,” despite its negative attitude towards rationalistic proof, presented arguments close in meaning to ontological proof. Considering the essence of God incomprehensible, Malebranche considered the proof of the existence of God, which would be based on the idea of ​​​​the infinite existing in the human soul, to be the most “solid” and requiring “the least assumptions.” The metaphysical premise of these “assumptions” was Malebranche’s doctrine of the existence of all things in God and a special doctrine of ideas as originally involved in God. From this point of view, according to Malebranche, “it cannot be allowed that the idea of ​​an infinitely perfect Being, which is our idea of ​​God, was something created” (Malebranche, p. 283); in another edition, this argument looked like this: “It is impossible to contemplate the non-existent” (Ibid. p. 372).

B. Pascal in the book. "Thoughts" argued that it is impossible to believe in God using evidence for the existence of God; metaphysical evidence is not only complex in its construction, but also unconvincing. Emphasizing the priority of faith over reason, Pascal wrote: “Faith is different from proof: man proves, God gives faith” (Pascal. Thoughts. P. 217). Continuing the Cartesian tradition, F. Fenelon in Op. “Demonstration de l'existence de Dieu” (Proofs of the existence of God) based the proof on the doctrine of the truth and immutability of the idea of ​​God.

J. Locke in “An Essay on Human Understanding”, considering the question of the idea of ​​a supreme being, noted that it does not have an innate character, as Descartes believed, and arises on the basis of experience from a number of ideas that are formed in a person regarding his own existence, knowledge, happiness, etc. and expand “through the idea of ​​infinity” in the case when it is necessary “to form an idea that is perhaps more suitable for a higher being” (Locke. Works. T. 1. P. 366). This proof, with some significant additions and clarifications, is given in detail by Locke in the 4th book. (Chapter 10, “On knowing God”). Discussing the problem of existence as the most important, Locke expressed the conviction that “we gain knowledge of our own existence through our intuition, knowledge of the existence of God through proof, and knowledge of other things through sensations” (Ibid. Vol. 2. P. 96). Locke built his proof of the existence of God on the principle of the unconditional certainty of human existence, to justify which he used various arguments, including Descartes' arguments regarding the doctrine of doubt; on the position of reason “that nothing can produce something existing; therefore, there is something eternal” (Ibid. p. 98); on the understanding and interpretation of this “eternal” as an omnipotent and omniscient being. Locke believed that his proof of the existence of God, based on reflection and the inherent human ability of intuitive knowledge, was equivalent in truth to mathematical certainty.

J. Berkeley topic D. b. God considered the works “Alkiphron” in the 4th dialogue. In the reasoning preceding the proof, objections are formulated against the ontological proof and proofs built on the impossibility of a causal series extending to infinity, and the doctrines of Descartes’ innate ideas, Malebranche’s “seeing things in God” and the existence of material substance are rejected. The most important requirements put forward by Berkeley in relation to possible proofs of the existence of God include his dual understanding of existence (or being): through “perception” through “ideas” and through perception through “spirits”. In the 1st case, the principle of esse est percipi (to be is to be perceived), sufficient in relation to the existence of “non-thinking things”, by definition, cannot be used in relation to God, in the 2nd case, the principle of perception through “spirits” involves an ascent from the visible signs of the “thinking self” to the existence of the spiritual principle, the invisible soul. Berkeley’s proof of the existence of God was built on this principle, who, following Locke, built it by analogy with the understanding of human existence. Berkeley wrote: “Even if I am not able to see the invisible God with my bodily eyes, I, nevertheless, really and in the strictest sense of the word notice and perceive such actions and consequences that prove, reveal, reveal the existence of the invisible God - as surely and at least as obviously as any signs perceived by the senses testify to the existence of your soul, spirit, or thinking principle in you” (Berkeley, p. 105).

In the teachings of G. W. Leibniz on the proofs of the existence of God, the main lines of his philosophy intersect - the doctrine of monads, the doctrine of pre-established harmony, the doctrine of types of necessity, eternal and contingent truths. Interest in evidence was due to two reasons in Leibniz's philosophy: internal, related to the need to substantiate divine existence as the foundation of its constructions, and external, related to the ontological argument in the philosophy of Descartes. In his letters to Malebranche (1679) and in a number of works up to the Theodicy, Leibniz repeatedly noted, anticipating some of Kant’s arguments, that Descartes’ ontological proof is flawed, since he substantiates the necessity of the existence of God from the idea of ​​God as a perfect being, but nowhere discusses the question of whether an absolutely perfect being is possible. In “Remarks on the General Part of Descartes’ Principia,” Leibniz wrote that Descartes’ arguments will be indisputable “if we assume that the most perfect being, that is, the necessary, is possible and does not contain a contradiction, or - what is the same thing - that an essence is possible, from which existence follows” (Leibniz. Theodicy // Works. Vol. 4. pp. 177-178). Descartes would hardly have agreed with such additions, especially with the inference about the existence of God from knowledge of His essence.

Leibniz's criticism of the ontological proof did not mean that he did not intend to use it; For him, this proof was based primarily on 2 laws of logic: the law of contradiction, known since the times of Plato and Aristotle, and the law of sufficient reason discovered by Leibniz himself (Ibid. p. 157). In substantiating the metaphysical necessity of an absolutely perfect being (i.e., its possibility and consistency), Leibniz resorted to cosmological and teleological arguments, developing the doctrine of pre-established harmony in the world; citing an ontological proof of “a substance that has in itself the basis of its being and, therefore, necessary and eternal” (the most perfect monad) and identifying with it God, the omnipotent, all-wise and all-good (Ibid. pp. 134-135), Leibniz noted that without the law of sufficient reason, “we could never prove the existence of God” (Ibid., p. 157).

In his work “A New System of Nature and Communication Between Substances,” Leibniz developed another, moral proof, based on the position that God is guided by moral necessity in relation to the world of people, and man is understood as a moral being, based on freedom, given to him by God (Leibniz. A new system of nature and communication between substances // Works. T. 1. pp. 278-279). Considering the moral world as a system of spirits, Leibniz wrote, “one must think... that every spirit should occupy such a place in it as to most contribute to the perfection of the society of all spirits that make up their moral connection in the Kingdom of God. This hypothesis also provides a new proof of the existence of God, amazingly clear, for such a perfect agreement of so many substances that have no communication with each other can only come from a common cause” (Ibid. p. 280). Of particular importance for understanding the problem of cosmological proof was Leibniz’s correspondence with S. Clark, a defender of I. Newton’s teaching on the absoluteness of space and time, in which the question of the existence of God was considered in close connection with the physical and mathematical teachings of the era; On the one hand and on the other, natural scientific arguments were given that confirmed the existence of God.

H. Wolf, a follower of Leibniz's philosophy, in the construction of the ontological D. b. Bozhia formally reproduced the principles of his teacher and relied on the same laws of logic - contradiction and sufficient reason. Wolf began his proof by analyzing a “thing” in relation to the basis of its existence and concluded that “that thing which has the basis of its reality in itself and is therefore such that it is impossible for it not to exist is called an independent essence (selbständiges Wesen). Therefore, it is obvious that an independent essence exists” (Wolf. P. 324). Having proved the necessity of the existence of an “independent essence,” Wolff presented arguments that should necessarily have shown that the only “independent essence” is God (Ibid., pp. 324-327).

D. Hume in his “Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion” made ontological, physical-teleological and other arguments the subject of critical consideration; at the end of the treatise, devoid of a clear and consistent formulation of the question of the existence of God, the relationship between natural and revealed religion, he came to the conclusion “that the cause or causes of order in the universe probably have some distant analogy with the human mind” (Hume. P. 481 ). This recognition of the intelligent cause of the universe, surrounded by a lot of reservations in Hume, expressed his skeptical position regarding religion and God, due to the phenomenalist approach to these problems. J. Priestley, in his works “Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion” and “Inquiries into Matter and Spirit,” also considered provable only the recognition of God as a rational First Cause (“Creator of the world and people”) and believed that there is no need to discuss the topic of His essence when discussing the question of the existence of God.

Voltaire in an early op. The Metaphysical Treatise, arguing against the innate concept of God, presented arguments known at that time in favor of the existence of God; in particular, he wrote: “There is being, which, by force of necessity, exists in itself from eternity and is the root cause of all other types of being” (Voltaire, p. 233). In his work “Fundamentals of Newton’s Philosophy,” he relied on the physical and theological proof of the existence of God, developed in the works of Newton, and in his later writings he denied the reliability of k.-l. evidence.

A supporter of the cosmological proof was E. B. de Condillac, who believed in “Logic” that from a number of effects and causes observed in the world, one can draw a conclusion about an independent and necessary First Cause, which is a condition of order in the entire universe and “encompasses in its infinity and in its eternity everything that exists” (Condillac, p. 207). From this still “imperfect idea of ​​deity” people will ascend to a perfect one as they understand the things created by God (Ibid. p. 208).

In him. idealism theme D. b. God occupied an important place in the teachings of Kant and Hegel. Kant's attitude to the evidence for the existence of God was different in the pre-critical and critical periods of his work. In op. “The only possible basis for proving the existence of God,” which was considered by Kant as preparatory materials for Buddhism. work, the author, already on the first pages, expressed doubt about the need to prove the generally known truth of the existence of God that lies at the basis of knowledge, and at the same time noted that such evidence has not yet been found. The path chosen in this work, which requires an analysis of the self-evident term “existence” (being), testified to a new approach to evidence. Kant comes to the conclusion that the generally accepted idea of ​​the concept of “existence” as a predicate or determination of a thing is erroneous. He wrote: “The expression existence is used as a predicate, and this can be done with confidence and without fear of falling into errors as long as one does not set oneself the task of deducing existence from only possible concepts, as is usually done when one wants to prove an absolutely necessary existence "(Kant. The only possible basis for proving the existence of God. P. 402). On this basis, Kant rejected the ontological D. b. God, which proved the existence (existence) of God either from the idea of ​​God (Descartes) or from the possibility of an absolutely perfect being (Leibniz-Wolf school), and contrasted them with his own method of ontological proof, according to which the condition of possibility is the existing (or real).

Kant proved the existence of an unconditionally necessary being (God) as follows: “Every possibility presupposes something real, in which and through which everything conceivable is given. Therefore, there is a certain reality, the destruction of which would even abolish any internal possibility at all. But something, the abolition or denial of which destroys all possibilities, is absolutely necessary. Therefore, there is something that exists in an absolutely necessary way” (Ibid. p. 424). Developing this proof, Kant argued that this necessary being is one, simple, unchangeable and eternal.

Despite the deep analysis of “existence,” Kant’s proof, based on the idea that a necessary being (God) is the real basis of every other possibility, can hardly be considered more convincing than the proofs of Descartes and Leibniz, moreover, in its argumentation it is reducible to the thesis - it is impossible that God does not exist, since in this case it would be impossible to conceive the existence of both real and possible things. Although this thought in itself is correct in content, in form it returns Kant to his original positions.

In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant not only rejects the proofs of the existence of God, but also considers them untenable; at the same time, he relies on the concept of God as the real foundation of all things, which had already been established in the work “The Only Possible Foundation...”; considers existence (being) as only a “position” and “not a real predicate”; distinguishes between logical and real grounds, the identification of which, according to Kant, was a necessary condition for ontological proof.

According to Kant, an ontological proof, which deduces the existence of God from the concept (or idea) of God, only states the connection between logical categories, but does not prove the existence of God. The cosmological proof, which establishes the relationship between the conditioned and the unconditional, contains a number of shortcomings: firstly, it is reducible to an ontological proof, secondly, the transition from the conditioned to the absolutely necessary being represents, according to Kant’s teaching, the application of the categories of the understanding beyond the limits of their possible use, that is, their transcendental application; a physical-theological proof, correct in its premises, at best presupposes the existence of an architect in the world, but not the Creator of the world, and requires the necessary additions from the ontological proof.

The impossibility of proving the existence of God, according to Kant, testifies only to the limited capabilities of theoretical reason in knowing God. Already in the “Critique of Pure Reason,” Kant developed the doctrine of God within the framework of “ethico-theology,” or moral theology (Moraltheologie), a science that explores the area common to ethics and theology, and “inevitably leads to the concept of a single, most perfect and rational primary essence" (Kant. Critique of Pure Reason. P. 668), to God, understood as unconditional good. Developing the doctrine of morality in the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant substantiated the existence of God as a postulate of practical reason and believed that only God can be a necessary and sufficient basis for the moral world order. Kant’s teaching on moral faith, which is based on ethical-theology, surpasses natural science in its reliability and truth and necessarily affirms the existence of God, is called “moral proof.” Kant wrote: “... faith is not prescribed, it arose from the moral conviction itself... to recognize the existence of a wise Creator of the world...” (Kant. Critique of Practical Reason. P. 482).

Hegel, who was guided in the construction of his own philosophy by the principle of the identity of being and thinking, restores traditions in a new edition. ontological, cosmological and teleological D. b. God and considers this view to be erroneous. Kant that being is not a predicate. In his “Lectures on the Proof of the Existence of God,” read in the summer semester of 1829 at the University of Berlin, Hegel noted that proofs by their nature belong to two philosophical areas (logic and philosophy of religion) and are associated with the most complex question of the relationship between faith and mind. Seeing a danger in Kantian subjectivism, Hegel, as the starting point of D. b. God believes that it is necessary to clearly separate the question of God in Himself (and for Himself) and God in relation to the world (God the Creator) (Hegel, p. 355). Although Hegel wrote: “Religion must be felt, must be in the feeling, otherwise it is not religion; faith cannot be without feelings, otherwise it is not religion” (Ibid. p. 358); nevertheless, the most important premise of his doctrine of evidence is the logical-rationalistic approach, according to which faith is “mediated” by consciousness, which makes it possible to conclude that the nature of God is comprehensible. (Ibid. p. 365). This assumption in turn determines the possibility of ontological proof.

When discussing the logical structure and nature of evidence, Hegel considers it necessary not to follow the established forms of argumentation. God, known from the history of philosophy, and develop them as a consistent development of the concept of God through a series of logical definitions; this gives Hegel’s proofs, even in comparison with his philosophy of religion, the abstract philosophical character of the doctrine of God in general and turns the proof into a schematic presentation of his own philosophy of the absolute spirit.

Hegel saw the meaning of evidence in “the elevation of the human spirit to God” and believed that it was “rooted in the nature of our spirit” (Ibid. p. 345). Understanding sublimation as the universal basis of religion and identifying it with consciousness and knowledge, Hegel developed his proofs as a process of revealing the concept of the existence of God, regardless of whether we are talking about a cosmological, teleological or ontological proof; Therefore, the basis of the cosmological proof is the doctrine of the relationship between finite and random being and absolute being, the basis of the teleological is the doctrine of the relationship of the expediently arranged finite world with an infinite and necessary being, the basis of the ontological is the fullness of divine consciousness, the Absolute, which embraces infinite and finite being .

Experimental tests

In 2006, the American Heart Journal published the results of one of the so-called “prayer experiments”6. It was funded by the Templeton Foundation and aimed to establish that prayer for the sick promotes their recovery. Dr. Herbert Benson and his team examined 1,802 patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting at six hospitals. The patients were divided into three groups. Prayers were offered for the patients of group 1, but they did not know about it. No prayers were offered for patients in group 2 (control), and they also did not know about it. Patients of group 3 were prayed for with their knowledge. Based on the results of the condition of patients in groups 1 and 2, the effectiveness of prayer for help was determined. The condition of patients in group 3 indicated possible psychosomatic effects on patients of the knowledge that they are being prayed for. The prayer was held by the congregation of three churches: in Minnesota, Massachusetts and Missouri; all three churches are at a considerable distance from three hospitals. It is customary for scientific experiments to be carried out with the greatest possible degree of standardization, so all worshipers were asked to include in the prayer the phrase “for a successful operation and a quick recovery without complications.”

As the results of the experiment showed, the condition of the patients for whom prayers were offered was no different from the condition of the patients for whom prayers were not offered. There was a difference in the condition of those who knew that they were being prayed for, and patients from both groups who did not know about it - but it also turned out to be the opposite of expectation. Patients who knew that prayers were being offered for them had significantly more complications than those who did not know about it. It is likely that the patients for whom they were praying were exposed, due to their awareness, to additional stress—“actor anxiety,” as the researchers call it.

In addition, Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton noted that every Sunday in all English churches all parishioners offer a joint prayer for the health of the royal family. Based on this, one would assume that the members of the royal family are in exceptionally good health. Galton conducted a study7 and did not find statistical evidence for this - for example, the average life expectancy in the royal family turned out to be even shorter than the national average.

If God were virtuous, merciful and in control of the world, most likely he would hear prayers and such experiments would have different results. But it seems that it cannot meet all these criteria at the same time (that is, in the sense in which it is defined, it does not exist).

Who created God?

To briefly answer the question of who created God, we can say - no one. Nobody created it. One must try to understand the difference between conditioned existence and absolute existence.

A simple example. The existence of a person is determined by being: the marriage of parents, food, air and many other reasons. Everything we see around us is conditioned existence. All these objects, even the Sun and the galaxy, are not eternal. They are created by some other external reasons, for example, by the movement of matter.

The divine essence is absolute being. This is the root cause and prime mover of everything that happens. Therefore, Orthodox Christians pronounce the following words in liturgical prayer: . “You brought us from non-existence into being.” God does not need any reasons for him to exist.

All our questions about who he is, whether he really exists, and who created him make no sense. After all, our mind is capable of understanding only that which relates to conditioned existence and is not capable of realizing the absolute.

Ask your question to granddaughter Anna here

All people deny the existence of gods

In total, there are about 4,300 different religions in the world,8 so any believer is an atheist in relation to thousands of religions, and will go to hell in at least dozens of religions. If thousands of other religions have a wrong idea about God, there is a high probability that a representative of a particular religion also has a wrong idea about him. This argument comes from historian Stephen Roberts, who said:

I think we are both atheists. I just don't believe in one less god than you. When you understand why you reject all other possible gods, you will understand why I reject yours9.

Indeed, the probability of the existence of the Greek Olympian gods and, say, the Christian God is approximately the same. And most likely, if you exclude the existence of 4000 Gods instead of excluding the existence of 3999 Gods, the difference will be insignificant.

Paradoxical

The very idea of ​​God and many of his qualities is largely paradoxical. As a rule, in this regard, the paradox of omnipotence and the paradox of omniscience are most often recalled. The paradox of omnipotence goes like this: can God create a stone that he cannot lift10? Like the concepts of freedom and tolerance, the concept of omnipotence contains a paradox, because if someone can do absolutely everything, then it turns out that he is able to do what is impossible to do. It turns out absurd. God cannot do what is impossible to do, because if he does it, that action will no longer be impossible. And, therefore, God cannot do everything. That is, there must be some specific list of what God can do, because there are many things that he cannot do (for example, create a prison from which he cannot get out).

The paradox of omniscience, or the paradox of omniscience, is this: does God have freedom of choice if he knows the future? After all, if God knows the future, then he either cannot change it, and then he has no power even over himself, or he can change this future, but then he cannot say exactly in advance what will happen in the future, and then he does not know the future. Sometimes you can hear the version that God's omniscience consists in knowing all the options that can happen, but in this case he does not know which one will happen, and then he is not omniscient.

Another problem we can look at is that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect, he would create perfect beings instead of imperfect beings like humans. But why create people as we see them today? Either due to insufficient knowledge, or due to the fact that they should be like that, which means that everything done by people is pleasing to God, even if they do not believe in God or deny his existence. After all, the logical questions are: why did God create vices or the possibility of their occurrence if he does not approve of them? If there are atheists in the world, does that mean it is God's will for them to exist? And, on the other hand, if Satan is bad, then why does he torture the same bad ones instead of using them in the fight against God, or instead of approving their actions? These questions are quite paradoxical, and speak about the paradoxical nature of the very concept of God.

Sun.

Einstein believed that the Sun, as well as the entire Universe, are created.

At the 8th General Conference of the European Society of Physics, it was said that not a single known chemical element could fit in the gap between neighboring particles of the solar body, which means we cannot consider the Sun to be a gas ball.

And if this were so, then over the billions of years of the Sun’s existence there would be nothing left of it.

That's why Albert Einstein thought about it. The sun has not changed in billions of years. It is a perfect source of energy, supported by something greater than we can imagine.

So is there a God...

God is not love

I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't exist.

Jules Renard

This is the name of the famous book by Christopher Hitchens11, who belongs to the movement of “new atheism” and, according to Prospect and Foreign Policy, ranks 5th in the ranking of 100 public intellectuals12. Overall, this title reflects the centuries-old dilemma that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and rules the world, then why is there so much evil in the world? Why didn't God stop the Nazis from abusing hundreds of thousands of people in concentration camps? Why didn't God prevent the Great Terror and forced collectivization in the USSR? Why didn't he prevent religious wars, crusades and the inquisition of the Church? Why is he allowing 820 million13 people to go hungry today? Why do some people have congenital body defects? If God is omnipotent and did nothing to prevent this, if he does not want to fix all this, then he is unlikely to be virtuous.

If he could not prevent this, then the question again arises - what exactly can he do? It turns out that he is not omnipotent, and then this is no longer God in the Christian understanding. It is strange to think that God had the power to create people, but lacks the power to change them.

It is also quite strange if God, for disobedience to his will, his rules or the rules of his supporters on Earth, sends people to eternal torment in Hell. It turns out that God is vindictive, vengeful and cruel, which does not fit with the concepts of virtue or forgiveness. A truly intelligent and virtuous God would not punish people for not worshiping him, and would allow them to live their lives and decide for themselves whether to believe in him or not. And if God is reasonable and virtuous, then he does not force anyone to believe in him (and believing in this case is neither good nor bad), and everyone is free to decide for themselves whether to believe or not. But if God is a vengeful being who sends people to torture because of views that are inconvenient to him, then in this case such a God is not good.

Unconventional treatment.

I don't know if you've ever experienced anything like this. I can say that I have seen from my own experience the effectiveness of this type of treatment.

This was back in childhood. I seriously injured my leg. The pain did not go away for a very long time, I practically could not walk. At that time, there was a man living with my grandmother in the village who treated this kind of injury and relieved pain.

They took me to him. I remember that he whispered prayers and moved the knife around his leg. Didn't do anything else.

Within an hour I was walking. And after a couple of hours I forgot about the pain and returned to a full active life.

This is just my personal case. But I have heard a lot of this kind of evidence. There is no need to talk about self-hypnosis, because I was still a child and for me it was more just interesting than I actually believed that my leg would be cured.

God is a business

In the article about making money from religion, we examined in detail, using the example of the Russian Orthodox Church, how religious organizations build a profitable business by exploiting people’s beliefs. Religions have often been, or still are, businesses through which big money is made, and we can with high probability assume that it was not God who created man, but man who created God. Sometimes religion is also used as a way to maintain power, that is, as an additional way to manage and control people. For example, in the book of Romans (the Bible) it is written:

Let every soul be submissive to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God; the existing authorities have been established by God. Therefore, he who resists authority resists God's institution. And those who resist will bring condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good deeds, but to evil deeds. Do you want to not be afraid of power? Do good, and you will receive praise from her, for the ruler is God’s servant, for your good14.

Given this, it turns out that inventing God would be quite profitable.

School of falsifications

History knows a large number of examples of the reporting of false information by clergy and priests. We examined many of the examples in the material mentioned at the beginning of the article about the truth of the sacred scriptures. But the matter is not limited to them.

The practices of “pious deception” were very common among Church leaders. It is known that such forged documents were created as the False Decretals of Isidore15, the “Donation of Constantine”16 and so on. Many frauds are associated with the myrrh streaming of icons. One of the first such frauds was exposed by Tsar Peter the Great:

His Majesty soon found very small and almost completely inconspicuous holes in the eyes of the image, which the shadow cast in that place made even more inconspicuous. He turned the board around, tore off the frame, and having broken out the crossbar or connection, which usually happens with images on the other side, to his pleasure he saw the truth of his guess and discovered deception and the source of tears; namely: holes were made in the board opposite the eyes of the image, in which several thick wooden oils were placed, and which were covered with a back crossbar. “Here is the source of wonderful tears!” said the Emperor. Each of those present had to come and see this cunning deception with their own eyes.

Then the wise Monarch explained to those around him how the thickened oil, closed from everywhere, could last so long in a cold place, and how it flowed into the aforementioned holes in the eyes of the image like tears, melting from the warmth, when the place against which it lay was heated by the candles , lit in front of the image 17.

Some clergy, for example, Metropolitan Nicholas of Nizhny Novgorod and Arzamas, also note cases of dishonesty of local clergy:

There should be a certain commission that should study such things. And all this was left to chance, carelessly. They announced the myrrh-streaming, and everyone was silent. We have a parish in the Bogorodsky district. Suddenly there was a huge uproar: 68 icons had lost their myrrh! I grabbed my head. Guys, you need to have some kind of conscience! A commission was quickly created. All icons have been wiped clean. The temple was sealed and closed. It stood for a week. At least one drop appeared. So I approach this with a certain caution18.

There is also a known case with the myrrh-streaming statue of Jesus Christ in Mumbai, when the publicist Sanal Edamaruku revealed that the getting wet of the statue was due to a leak in a sewer pipe in a nearby laundry, and a police report was filed against him, charging him with blasphemy19. Another example is the Shroud of Turin, long revered as the burial robe of Jesus Christ20, which, according to radiocarbon dating, turned out to be made in the Middle Ages21. Finally, there is a known campaign to uncover relics in Soviet Russia during the reign of the Bolshevik Party, the results of which are reflected in the report of the VIII (liquidation) Department of the People's Commissariat of Justice to the Congress of Soviets22. In the presence of clergy, medical experts and representatives of the Soviet government, 63 autopsies of relics were carried out at that time, in which in many cases no signs of human bones were found at all, instead of which there were burnt nails, dolls, animal remains, or nothing at all. Some chests revealed animal bones, the remains of several different people instead of the supposed one person, and even a jar of fixatoire.

The Church for a long time denied the heliocentric system and the theory of evolution, and also fought against science. In 1616, the Catholic Church condemned heliocentrism as a heretical doctrine. In 1633, an inquisitorial trial of the physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei took place, which ended with the banning of the scientist’s book, Galileo himself was placed under house arrest, controlled by inquisitors, and his theory was declared a “false teaching”24 (although it later turned out that it was the Catholic Church who was lying) . Even earlier, in 1600, the philosopher Giordano Bruno, who proposed the infinity of the Universe and many worlds, after a denunciation and a lengthy trial, was declared a heretic by the Inquisition Tribunal and burned alive in the same year25. Many examples of falsifications on the part of the clergy are one of the indirect signs that the existence of God may be another falsification of the clergy.

How to prove to an atheist that God exists?

There is a category of people who say: show me God, then I will believe. To prove anything to such a person is to waste your time in the most useless way. He has already decided everything for himself. A person who really wants to find out something for himself is ready to follow the path of knowledge, or at least logical reasoning.

You can prove to a person that God exists if you analyze such a phenomenon as clairvoyance.

Everyone knows such a phenomenon as clairvoyance. It is defined as a type of extrasensory perception, the presumed ability of a person to receive information beyond the channels of perception known to science and determined by modern scientific means, including information about events of the past and future (Wikipedia). One of the most striking examples of possessing the gift of clairvoyance was Vanga, Nastradamus. However, there will always be skeptics whose pride will not allow them to reconcile with the fact that there is someone with greater abilities than him. In particular, Michel Nastradamus is accused of lacking a clear reference to time in the events described in his quatrains. But the time of the events predicted by Nastradamus was given in encrypted form. And Dmitry and Nadezhda Zima were able to decipher these dates, which they outlined in their book “Deciphered Nastradamus.” Numerous facts confirming Vanga’s clairvoyance also speak for themselves. But how can this unusual phenomenon be explained? Let's try to figure it out.

In essence, we encounter the effect of clairvoyance every day. For example, a weather forecast is also a fact of “clairvoyance”, but it is not always accurate. In essence, clairvoyance is an accurate forecast of events that will happen in the future. But what is necessary in order to predict future events as accurately as possible? For this you need two things:

1. All possible data that may affect the course of the predicted event;
2. Error-free, accurate analytical processing of all this data, giving the only correct forecast for the development of a particular event.

What data primarily influences and ultimately determines all major events? These are the thoughts and desires of people that, to one degree or another, can influence the development of the predicted event. And the only person to whom these properties are attributed is the Supreme Divine Personality. The most complete picture of what is happening is given by Vedic scriptures, such as the Bhagavad Gita . They say that the Supreme Divine Personality, who is the First Cause of everything, resides in the heart of every living being in the form of Paramatma, and who knows all the thoughts and desires of the living being.

“I reside in the heart of every living being, and from Me come memory, knowledge and forgetfulness. The purpose of all Vedas is to understand Me.” (“BHAGAVAD – GITA” CHAPTER 15, TEXT 15).

The approximate dimensions of Paramatma are also given, which are equal to the distance between the end of the thumb and the end of the ring finger of the hand, that is, approximately twenty centimeters. According to Vedic literature, the heart also contains the soul - “atma”, which is a living being associated for a certain time with the physical body.

The Vedic scriptures also state that Paramatma (Supersoul) and atma (soul) are of the same nature. That is, in other words, they represent identical substances.

The most ancient Holy Scriptures - the Vedas, contain information not only about the Supreme Divine Personality as the First Cause of everything that exists. But the Vedas also contain information about the size of an atom, the speed of light (up to ten thousandths of a coincidence with the data of modern science), as well as the structure of the solar system with exact distances. The Vedas also contain information about other universes. including those that have an immaterial (“spiritual”) structure. This and other things are discussed in more detail in the article “VEDIC KNOWLEDGE.”

Let's summarize. The Supreme Being, who is the main source of life, is present in every person, in the form of some wave field (Paramatma). Human thoughts, which also have a wave characteristic, are accessible to Paramatma. Thus, God has all the information about every person. Having the most powerful analytical thinking and all the necessary information, the Supreme Being has the ability to give an accurate forecast of events that will occur in the future. This information is transmitted to a person (predictor), who voices these future events.

Some clairvoyants (also Vanga) have the ability to “read” information from a person’s information field, and even from objects belonging to a person. But only the Supreme Personality can process and summarize all the information coming from millions of people. People with the gift of clairvoyance explain that information simply appears in their heads as ready-made video information.

In fact, the manifestation of such a phenomenon as clairvoyance proves the existence of a certain Supreme Personality, which, due to its presence in the form of an energetic substance (Paramatma), in the body of living beings, has complete information about a living being (including its thoughts). But just try to imagine what kind of analytical power you need to have in order to process such an amount of information, taking into account the dynamics of interaction of this data with each other! And the fact that people periodically appear who demonstrate such unique capabilities looks like a demonstration of evidence of the existence of a Supreme Personality possessing supernatural abilities that are very difficult to comprehend.

In order to make sure that the DNA molecule could not be created “by chance,” but only by reason - an intelligent initiation on the part of an incomprehensibly powerful Being, you can read the following research by scientists. Having reviewed all of the above arguments, not a single person with adequate thinking would think of asserting that life could “spontaneously originate” as a result of the chaotic mixing of molecules. Well, those people who are in no way satisfied with the existence of the Supreme Mind will always exist. And they will not have any hope of obtaining new – true knowledge about the universe – until they have a desire to obtain this knowledge!

Peace to everyone! S. Amalanov

— ARTICLES AND BOOKS by Sergei Amalanov —

……………………………………………………..

— SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE NEWS ABOUT NEW PUBLICATIONS OF ARTICLES AND BOOKS by S. Amalanov (LINK) —

…………………………………………………….

THIS IS INTERESTING:

— Who has seen God? What God looks like. – the most comprehensive overview of the world’s major religions on the topic: “What God looks like”

Opposing Arguments

Despite the existence of the above arguments, many are in no hurry to stop believing in God for their own reasons. Among such reasons there are, for example, coincidences - when a person asked God for something and it came true, or luck - when a person won a lottery in which the chance of winning was close to zero, and considered the will of God to be the reason for his winning. However, people do not consider unanswered prayers and lottery losses as evidence of the absence of God, which indicates double standards and bias in the interpretation of these events.

In the absence of God, many questions also remain that would explain his existence. People ask them and want answers. Religion often allows us to obtain simple and understandable answers to questions that, it would seem, the secular point of view cannot answer. However, this is at first glance. So, the question is often asked: if there is no God, then what will happen after death? The same as before life. After cardiac arrest, the brain continues to function26 in a dream-like state for some time, after which it shuts down.

Another famous question: “If there is no God, then who created the world? The world couldn’t appear out of nowhere—someone had to create it.” But according to this logic, God also could not appear out of nowhere, and someone had to create him too. In this sense, the Big Bang theory seems less controversial. Some people argue that the probability of accidentally creating a complex world like ours is equal to the probability of a tornado flying over a junkyard accidentally collecting a Boeing 747 (an argument usually attributed to astrophysicist Fred Hoyle27). However, according to the so-called “Dawkins Gambit,” if we accept this argument, then we also accept the proposition that such a complex being as God cannot arise by chance either. And in this case, the question again arises, who created God.

In its nature the argument from the first cause is no different from the view of that Hindu who believed that the world rested on the elephant, and the elephant on the tortoise; when the Hindu was asked: “What does the turtle support?” - he answered: “Let's talk about something else.” Indeed, the argument from the first cause is no better than the answer given by the Hindu. After all, there is no reason to believe that the world could not have arisen without a cause; on the other hand, there is no reason to believe that the world could not exist forever. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I do not need to waste any more time on analyzing the argument from the first cause...29

Bertrand Russell

There is also an argument called the "God of Blind Spots" which is that gaps in scientific and natural evidence are evidence for the existence of God. It sounds something like this: “science cannot explain why X happens, which means it can only be explained by the fact that X is created by God.” However, if no one knows who stole the ruler from Masha from 5th “B” grade, this does not mean that God stole it - it means that no one found out who stole it and whether it was stolen at all. The fact that an explanation has not yet been found for some phenomenon does not mean that there is no such explanation, and even more so does not mean that God’s involvement in this phenomenon has been proven.

Does God exist? Is it possible to answer this question unambiguously?

A cool mind and the ability to think rationally are more positive qualities than negative ones. But at the same time, there is a risk of turning into a callous cracker who does not believe in anything intangible and annoys everyone with the phrase: “You have to prove it!”

Many theosophists, scientists, philosophers, and writers have wrestled with the question of whether God really exists or whether it is an invention of the church to keep people in submission and fear.

Many theories have been developed with arguments both for and against the existence of God. All these theories have been repeatedly improved, supplemented and criticized.

But the most interesting thing is that, despite numerous scientific discoveries, despite the fact that man has advanced so far in the study of space, it is not possible to accurately prove the existence of God, as well as the opposite.

I have a negative attitude towards both religious fanatics and militant atheists after I once came across an atheist group on Facebook where they mocked Christian dogmas.

In any other case, I would simply quickly pass by - you won’t see such nonsense on social networks. But I accidentally looked at the comments under several topics. The verbal battles waged by believers and non-believers could not be compared with any political publicity.

And then I realized that everyone who so aggressively imposes their opinion is practically criminals, because they do not use arguments, do not want to think and analyze the information received from the other side, they, in fact, are not interested in getting to the bottom of the truth. She just loves to swear and curse others.

Not everything in this world can be explained scientifically. Here, for example, is how to explain luck. Why are some people born obvious favorites of fortune, while others are unlucky in life?

Or the 5% theory applicable to car accidents? Did you know that car accidents are 5% more likely to survive than expected, according to probability theory?

How to explain the developed intuition of some? Prophetic dreams? Happy accidents that help us escape from a terrible tragedy? Paranormal abilities of some people?

Yes, there are too many things that cannot be rationally argued, but try to argue that this does not exist.

Is it the same with God somewhere? It is impossible to prove whether it exists or not, although I will tell you about the existing arguments for and against in further sections of the article.

You just have to believe whether God exists because:

• a primitive creature “man” with animal instincts “to eat”, “sleep” and others cannot be the crown of civilization;
• many things that happen in our lives cannot be explained from a rational point of view;
• believing in something good and bright is always better than being known as a boring “non-believer Thomas”;
• by remaining an atheist, you deprive yourself of many joys, and the same beloved holidays as Christmas or Easter;
• It’s hard to live without believing in any magic and never expecting help from higher powers.

Of course, it is up to you to accept the fact of God's existence on faith or continue to look for evidence. But I showed you the shortest way to calm your heart. Why create additional difficulties for yourself?

Bottom line

In this article, we do not aim to evaluate faith in God, but only to understand how justified it is. The above arguments point to contradictions that make it extremely unlikely that God exists as we usually understand him. However, it is much more difficult to prove, say, that there is no intelligent force that caused the Big Bang (although the question arises about the origin of such a force). However, refuting such theories of God is not essential for social democrats. But theories that go beyond such limits do not have sufficient grounds. Therefore, we can conclude that gods in the generally accepted understanding do not exist, and the existence of God in an understanding not yet formulated by existing religions is unlikely.

“The Anthropic Principle of the Universe” as proof of the existence of God

Most likely, you have noticed that recently, science and religion, which were in conflict for a long time, have recently begun to come closer again. After all, research, for example, in the field of quantum physics , shows that the world is not as “material” as we previously imagined it to be.

Other useful articles
Quantum physics in simple words.
Even a child will understand. But let's return to the Anthropic principle of the Universe. Modern science has suddenly discovered that the emergence of life on Earth, as well as the development of civilization, became possible only thanks to a paradoxically unlikely combination of extremely harsh conditions. Among them:

And many more proportions and interconnections of our complex world coincided.
Scientists say that the interconnectedness of all these factors is such that the possibility of their coincidence is completely excluded.

Sources

1. S.S. Averintsev, T.K. Ibrahim and others. God // Great Russian Encyclopedia. Electronic version (bigenc.ru). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://bigenc.ru/religious_studies/text/1871354 (Access date: 12/17/2020).
2. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: 80,000 words and phraseological expressions / Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Russian Language named after. V.V. Vinogradova. — 4th ed., supplemented. - 944 pp. - M.: A TEMP LLC, 2006. - p. 52.
3. God // Merriam-Webster (www.merriam-webster.com). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god (Accessed: 12/17/2020).
4. Priest V. Shmaliy. God // Orthodox Encyclopedia (www.pravenc.ru). March 31, 2009. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.pravenc.ru/text/149441.html (Access date: 12/17/2020).
5. Bertrand Russell. Is There a God? // The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell / ed. John G. Slater and Peter Kollner. - London: Routledge, 1997. - Vol. 11: Last Philosophical Testament, 1943-68. — p. 543-48
6. H. Benson et al. Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients. American Heart Journal 151:4, 2006, pp. 934–942.
7. Francis Galton, Statistical Inquiries into the Efficacy of Prayer, The Fortnightly Review, August 1, 1872 // Abelard (www.abelard.org). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.abelard.org/galton/galton.htm (Date of access: 12/17/2020).
8. Stephen Juan. What are the most widely practiced religions of the world? // The Register (www.theregister.com). October 6, 2006, 11:07 am. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.theregister.com/2006/10/06/the_odd_body_religion/ (Date accessed: 12/21/2020).
9. David G. McAfee. Mom, Dad, I'm an Atheist. The Guide to Coming Out as a Non-Believer - 154 p. — Dangerous Little Books, 2012. — p. 13
10. Savage, C. Wade. The Paradox of the Stone // Philosophical Review. - 1967. - Vol. 76, no. 1 (January). — P. 74-79
11. K. Hitchens. God is not love: How religion poisons everything - 368 p. — Alpina non-fiction, 2011.
12. David Herman. Prospect/FP Top 100 Public Intellectuals Results // Foreign Policy (foreignpolicy.com). October 15, 2005, 12:00. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://foreignpolicy.com/2005/10/15/prospectfp-top-100-public-intellectuals-results/ (Date of access: 12/17/2020)
13. 820 million people in the world are hungry // UN News (news.un.org). July 15, 2021. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://news.un.org/ru/story/2019/07/1359381 (Date of access: 12/17/2020).
14. Rm. 13:1-13:4
15. E.V. Kazbekova. False Isidore's decretals // Great Russian Encyclopedia. Electronic version (bigenc.ru). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://bigenc.ru/religious_studies/text/2648772 (Access date: 12/17/2020).
16. O.S. Voskoboynikov. Gift of Constantine // Great Russian Encyclopedia. Electronic version (bigenc.ru). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://bigenc.ru/religious_studies/text/2091969 (Access date: 12/17/2020).
17. Acts of Peter the Great, the wise transformer of Russia; collected from reliable sources and arranged by year. M., 1789. Part VII. pp. 93-97.
18. Maxim Shevchenko. About the authorities and the Church of Christ // Nezavisimaya Gazeta (www.ng.ru). April 25, 2001, 00:00. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.ng.ru/facts/2001-04-25/1_authorities.html (Access date: 12/17/2020).
19. A broken pipe is like blasphemy in our opinion // Kommersant Power (www.kommersant.ru). May 21, 2012. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1927145 (Access date: 12/17/2020).
20. Shroud of Turin // Britannica (www.britannica.com). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shroud-of-Turin (Accessed: 12/17/2020).
21. P. E. Damon, D. J. Donahue, B. H. Gore et al. Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. //Nature. 1989. V.337. R.611-615. // Shroud of Turin Website (www.shroud.com). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm (Date of access: 12/17/2020).
22. Magazine "Revolution and Church", 1920, Nos. 9-12, pp. 70-82.
23. I.S. Dmitriev. Stubborn Galileo. — 848 p. - M.: New Literary Review, 2015. - p. 145.
24. Galileo Galilei. Le opere di Galileo Galilei - Vol. XIX, sotto gli auspici di Sua Maestà il Re d'Italia. A cura di Antonio Favaro. Firenze, Tipografia di G. Barbera, 1907
25. N.V. Kotrelev. Bruno // Great Russian Encyclopedia. Electronic version (bigenc.ru). [Electronic resource]. URL: https://bigenc.ru/philosophy/text/1885350 (Access date: 12/17/2020).
26. Alfiya Enikeeva. Life after death. Scientists explained what happens in the afterlife // RIA Novosti (ria.ru). 07 July 2019, 08:00. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://ria.ru/20190707/1556255929.html (Access date: 12/17/2020).
27. George Johnson. Bright Scientists, Dim Notions // The New York Times (www.nytimes.com). October 28, 2007. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/weekinreview/28johnson.html (Accessed: 12/17/2020).
28. Richard Dawkins. God as an illusion / trans. from English N. Smelkova - 560 p. - M.: KoLibri Publishing House, 2010. - p. 164.
29. B. Russell. Why am I not a Christian? Featured atheist. works: Trans. from English — 334 p. - M.: Politizdat, 1987. - p. 98.