Is there a god opinion scientists. Does God really exist

Interesting: many believe that those who think that God created the Universe are the so-called “believers”, and those who recognize the Darwinian theory or the theory of the origin of life through cosmic beings as right are reasonable people based on scientific facts and archaeological finds. However, to agree with Darwin, no less faith is needed, especially since science, including archeology, is finding more and more evidence of the reliability of the Bible and the existence of God. But is this proof necessary for someone who refuses to believe in Him? After all, you can argue with anything.

For example, when I started studying chemistry at school, I flatly refused to believe in the existence of a crystal lattice. It just didn’t fit in my head that there were some special bonds between molecules in substances, and, in the end, I was simply not satisfied with the drawings in the textbook! And I thought it was nonsense. And no Mendeleevs could have convinced me (this is probably why I had so many problems with chemistry).

But disbelief in the crystal lattice, even if it exists, is not as dangerous as disbelief in God, if He exists. After all, then you doom yourself to real problems.

The saddest thing is that a person, not believing in God, does not see the meaning of his life in that, hence the senseless fuss, emptiness in the soul, all kinds of complexes, spoiled relationships and much more.

But let's move on to the evidence for those who want to believe in the Great Creator, Who has everything under control,
Who does everything with deep meaning and wonderful purpose. So, the first proof is not only scientific, but also quite logical.

Random appearance of the legendary mountainand famous Boeing

Remember the famous Mount Rushmore? It is carved with images of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt. Is it easy for you to believe that these images appeared by chance? Over the centuries, under the influence of rain, wind, this miracle of the world suddenly appeared. Of course, this sounds stupid. Logic tells us that people planned and skillfully carved these images. If the mountain could not have appeared by chance, then even more so our Earth, man, the Universe.

Frederick Hoyle, a famous astronomer, proved how mathematically absurd the random combination of amino acids in a human cell is. He showed this with an example: Is it possible that a tornado will sweep over the junk market, which will contain all the parts of a Boeing 747, and accidentally form an airplane from these parts and leave it there, ready to take off? This possibility should not be taken into account. It is much more reasonable to get acquainted with the biblical history of the origin of the Earth.

So, proof #1: Too many "coincidences".

Lookon your brain

Thanks to the brain, a person is able to simultaneously process an amazing amount of information. The brain perceives the colors and objects that we see, the temperature of the environment, the pressure of the feet on the floor, sounds, pain. The brain registers emotional reactions, thoughts and memories, controls the processes occurring in the body, and much more. It processes over a million pieces of information in just one second. So, is it possible to say that such a high-speed brain is the result of an accident, an explosion, the result of miraculous transformations of a monkey into a man?

Evidence #2: Only an overpowering mind could create such an amazingly complex organ.

perfect planet

If the human brain is so unusually thought out, then what can we say about the wonderful structure of our entire planet? Our planet has a perfect size and a corresponding gravitational force. If the Earth were smaller, the existence of an atmosphere on it would be impossible, just like on Mercury. If the Earth were larger, then it would become similar to Jupiter, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen. Thus, the Earth is still the only planet known to us that is supplied with an atmosphere containing the necessary composition of gases to support plant and animal life.

Apparently, our Earth is much more complicated than any Boeing. If his device speaks of a wise engineer, then all the more so our entire planet, any part of it points to such an Engineer Who does everything perfectly.

Evidence number 3: the extraordinary thoughtfulness of everything that surrounds us.

THE UNCHANGED Bible

Thoughts that there is a God visit a person not only when he studies nature. God left for people an even clearer proof of His existence - His Word, the accuracy of which archaeological excavations continue to confirm. For example, historical finds in northern Israel in August 1993 confirmed the existence of King David, the author of many of the Bible's Psalms. The Dead Sea Scrolls found in the Qumran caves and other archaeological discoveries prove the accuracy and immutability of the Bible.

As a result of the fact that it was rewritten (copied), translated into other languages, the text written on its pages was not damaged.

The Bible was written over 1500 years, by 40 different authors from different places, in three different languages, addressing different issues at different points in history. Nevertheless, there is a striking consistency in the Biblical text. Throughout the Bible, the thought runs like a red thread
that God loves us and invites us to receive His salvation and establish a relationship with Him that will last forever.

Evidence #4: We have reason to trust what the Bible says.

It is interesting that the path of many scientists who later became Christians began with the fact that each of them tried to refute the existence of God, to prove that the Bible is not a historical book. So, for example, in Soviet times, a group of scientists was assigned to prove that the gospel stories were fiction, but, turning to historical references, they recognized that what was written about Christ was true. So, dear friend, I can congratulate you on the fact that you are not a victim of chance, you were conceived by God long before you were born, He loves you and is waiting for you to believe Him and trust your life!

Tatyana Gromova

Especially for Sergei.

The evidence is based on the laws of thermodynamics

It is a very common point of view that the existence of God it is unprovable by rational-logical means that His existence can only be taken on faith as an axiom. If you want - believe, if you want - do not believe - this is a personal matter for everyone. As for Sciences, then it is most often considered that her business is to study our material world, to study rational-empirical methods, and since God intangible, then the science has nothing to do with Him - let, so to speak, “deal with” Him religion.

In fact, this is just not true - exactly the science provides us with the most compelling evidence for the existence God the Creator everything around us material world.

Already in the 9th grade of secondary school, students have an idea of ​​some fundamental scientific laws, for example, about Law of conservation of energy(also called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics), and the Law of Spontaneous Growth entropy, also known as 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. So, the existence of the biblical Creator God is a direct logical consequence of these two most important scientific laws.

Let us first ask ourselves the question: where did the observed by us surrounding us come from? material world? There are several possible answers to it:

1) World slowly evolved over many billions or trillions of years from some " primeval matter". At present, this is, so to speak, the "generally accepted" point of view. As if once there was a complete chaos, which then, for unknown reasons, suddenly "exploded" ( The Big Bang Theory) and then slowly evolved» from « primary broth” to amoeba, and then to humans.

2) Material world always existed, forever, in the form in which we observe it now.

3) Material world just took it and arose from nothing by itself a certain time ago.

4) World was created God some time ago as primeval chaotic matter, and then evolved to the modern form over many millions of years, but not "by itself", but under the influence of the same God. This is the so-called theory theistic evolution”, which is now also quite fashionable.

5) Material world was created from nothing God a certain time ago, completely completed and from then to the present is in a state of gradual degradation. Is this a biblical concept, or creationism.

Now armed with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, let's try to answer the question which of these concepts is correct, or, more precisely, which of them laws at least not contradictory.

The 1st of the above concepts, quite obviously, contradicts 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, according to which all natural spontaneous processes going in the direction of increasing entropy(i.e, chaos, disorder) systems. Evolution as spontaneous complication natural systems is completely and utterly unambiguously prohibited 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This law tells us that chaos never, under any circumstances, can be established by itself order. Spontaneous complication any natural system is impossible. For example, " primordial broth"never, under any circumstances, not for any trillions and billions of years could give rise to more highly organized protein bodies, which, in turn, could never, not for any trillions of years" evolve» in such highly organized structure, as a man. Thus, this "conventional" modern view of origin of the universe is absolutely wrong, as it contradicts one of the fundamental empirically established scientific laws – 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

2nd concept also contradicts 2nd Law. For if our material world was eternal and had no beginning in time, it is quite obvious that, according to 2nd Law, is he degraded by now to the level of full chaos. We, however, observe in the world around us highly ordered structures which, by the way, we ourselves are. So, the logical consequence of the 2nd Law is the conclusion that our Universe, all around us material world had a beginning in time.

3rd concept, according to which world arose from nothing “by itself” a certain time ago in a ready highly ordered sight, and since then slowly degrades, - of course, does not contradict the 2nd Law. But ... it is contrary to the 1st Law ( Law of conservation of energy), Whereby, energy(or matter, as E=mcc) cannot arise by itself, out of nothing.

Fashionable now 4th concept, according to which evolution exists, but not “in itself”, but under “ God's control", also contradicts 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. This law, in fact, it doesn't matter if the evolution"on its own", or "under the guidance of God". He simply speaks of the fundamental impossibility of flow in nature evolutionary processes and fixes the presence in it processes directly opposite - processes of spontaneous disorganization. If evolutionary processes of self-complication existed in nature (regardless of whether under the influence of God, or without it), then 2nd Law simply would not have been discovered and formulated science in the form in which it currently exists.

And only the 5th, biblical concept, creationism, fully satisfies both fundamental scientific laws. Material world did not arise by itself, it was created by an intangible God- and it matches Law of conservation of energy (1st Law of Thermodynamics), Whereby matter does not arise on its own out of nothing. Wherein 1st Law establishes the absence of matter (energy) from nothing at the present time, which also corresponds to the biblical statement that "in 6 days completed God his deeds, and rested,” that is, that from that time God no longer creates new matter. The one mentioned in bible"curse" inflicted God on the material world, just corresponds to the action 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Thus, one can calmly and boldly, without any exaggeration, assert that creation material world proven by science, since this fact is an obvious logical consequence of two fundamental, empirically established scientific laws – 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

Another thing is that, after all, science you can not believe. For example, various inventors perpetual motion machines, in fact, do not believe in the truth 1st Law of Thermodynamics - Law of Conservation of Energy. Therefore, they are trying to invent a mechanism that would create energy"out of nothing". Similarly, those who believe in the truth theories of evolution, in fact, do not believe in the truth 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which clearly prohibits the possibility evolution as self-complicating process- and in the same way they are trying to "invent", to come up with a supposedly existing "mechanism" or law, according to which there would be processes of self-organization of matter.

In this article, we will consider what in science is called the Cosmological and Teleological proof of the existence of God.

Convincing yourself that God really exists is actually not at all difficult. You don't have to be a scientist to do this, you don't have to have a special education or know the Bible. You just need to honestly and impartially look at the whole world around you and ask yourself a simple question: Where did all this come from?

How did the whole existing world appear: man, nature, Earth, the Universe? Could all this have come about on its own?

Artur Shavlov,
scientist physicist.

Artur Shavlov, renowned scientist and Nobel Prize winner in physics, wrote:

“The world is so amazing that I can’t even imagine that it happened by pure chance.”

If someone told me that, for example, my computer appeared by itself, then I would not even take it seriously. A computer is a complex device that must have been designed and built by a large number of people. But the whole world around us is incredibly more complicated, and even more so, it could not appear on its own. Our world has a Creator, and it is Him that we call God. Thus:

The existence of the surrounding world is proof of the existence of God, who created this world.

The legendary scientist and founder of modern chemistry, Robert Boyle, put it this way:

“The immensity, beauty and harmony of the cosmos, the amazing structure of the animal and plant world, other wonderful natural phenomena - all this rightly prompts a reasonable and unbiased observer to come to the conclusion about the existence of a higher, powerful, righteous and good Creator.”

This thought was also close to another no less famous scientist, Albert Einstein, who wrote:

“The deeper I study the world around me, the greater my faith in God becomes.”

The world in which we live is so amazing and complex that many natural processes remain an unsolvable mystery even for modern science. Science, for example, still does not know the answer to such a seemingly simple question as: what contributes to the growth of teeth in a child. Scientists only have different theories and assumptions on this subject, but so far the mechanism of tooth growth is not fully understood.

The fact that our whole so complex and wonderful world was created by Someone - you don’t even have to believe in it, it’s just an obvious fact. But in order to believe that all this happened by itself, by chance, - for this you really need a very great faith, which would be instilled in a person all his life from childhood. And such a belief is indeed inculcated by the so-called theory of evolution.

Despite the fact that, according to many famous scientists, the theory of evolution contradicts the fundamental laws of physics, it nevertheless continues to have a huge impact on people in modern society. According to recent surveys conducted by the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center, 35% of respondents said they believe in the theory of evolution.

Thus, about a third of the society succumbed to the influence of this widely propagated idea and believed that everything appeared by itself, and itself evolved into highly developed forms of life. But every thinking person understands perfectly well that nothing appears by itself. Our wonderful world was created by Someone. Therefore, as Robert Milliken, also the owner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, said:

“I have never met a thinking person who did not believe in God.

Does God exist: 7 theories confirming his existence + 4 types of arguments against.

The question of the existence of God is far from new, but it does not lose its relevance, despite the millennia that have passed since its inception.

A person is arranged in such a way that he believes mainly only in what he can see with his own eyes and feel with his hands. This is why real proof that God exists is so important to many.

Not everyone can simply believe in the existence of a higher power. I want to know for sure whether it exists or not.

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

A cold 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 bothers everyone with the phrase: “And you prove it!”.

Many theosophists, scientists, philosophers, writers struggled over whether God really exists or is it a fiction 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 the cosmos, it is not possible to accurately prove the existence of God, as well as the opposite.

I have a negative attitude towards both fanatic believers and militant atheists after one day I came across an atheist group on Facebook, where they mocked Christian dogmas.

In any other case, I would just pass quickly by - on social networks and you will see not such nonsense. 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 public.

And then I realized that everyone who imposes their opinion so aggressively 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 love to swear and curse others.

Not everything in this world can be explained scientifically. Here's an example of how to explain luck. Why are some people born as obvious favorites of fortune, while the second ones are unlucky in life?

Or the 5% theory applied to car accidents? Did you know that 5% more people survive in car crashes than they should, according to probability theory?

And how to explain the developed intuition of some? Prophetic dreams? Happy occasions that help us save ourselves from a terrible tragedy? Paranormal abilities of some people?

Yes, too much cannot be rationally argued, but try to argue that it does not exist.

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

You just need to believe that God exists, because:

• the primitive creation "man" with animal instincts "to eat", "sleep" and others cannot be the crown of civilization;
• many things that happen in our lives cannot be rationally explained;
• believing in something good and bright is always better than being known as a boring "unbelieving Thomas";
• remaining an atheist, you deprive yourself of many joys, and the same holidays beloved by many, like Christmas or Easter;
• it is difficult to live without believing in any magic and never expecting help from higher powers.

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

Is there a God? There are numerous theories to back it up!

Not only such an interested party as churchmen, but also the brightest minds among scientists, writers and other prominent figures, tried to prove that God really exists.

Not all theories convince that there is a God, and there are plenty of critics, but they provide plenty of food for thought.

1) Theories that God actually exists.

The first disputes about whether God exists were carried out by ancient philosophers. It cannot be said that over the past millennia, mankind has advanced far in this matter.

There are a lot of theories that prove that God actually exists today. Let's talk about the most famous ones.

Evidence that God exists:

1. God of white spots. All evidence for the existence of a higher power is based on scientific gaps, that is, on what scientists cannot explain. It is worth saying that this theory is actively criticized by the believers themselves, who believe that with the development of science there will be less and less “blank spots”, which means that God will be forced out of our lives.
2. Theory of morality. In principle, people themselves, without the Bible and preachers, know what is good and what is bad, what actions cannot be done, and without which you cannot be called the proud word “man”.

   We understand that there are good people and there are bad people, but the division into black and white has never been unambiguous, because good people do bad things and vice versa. Here you have the proof of objective morality, which does not depend on the morality created by man.

3. Cosmological aspect of the existence of the divine principle. Even Aristotle tried to prove that God exists, based on this aspect. His thoughts were further developed by Avicenna, Thomas Aquinas, William Hatcher and others. Here are 3 main arguments for the existence of this theory:

   That is, there are more non-material reasons for the existence of the Universe than material ones. Accordingly, it could not have done without God.

4. Teleological. It is based on the fact that the Universe is too complex an organism, which means that it could not have arisen by chance as a result of some kind of explosion. Accordingly, everything must be controlled by the supreme mind, that is, God.
5. The psychological aspect of the existence of God. Blessed Augustine began to develop this theory, and Descartes took up the banner in his time. The essence of the theory is that the idea of ​​the existence of God existed as long as the world exists, respectively, it is a product of the mental activity of not a person, but God himself. Cicero also gave his arguments:
   

   When we look at the sky, when we contemplate the celestial phenomena, does it not become quite clear, quite obvious that there is some deity of the most excellent mind who controls all this? If anyone doubts this, then I do not understand why he does not also doubt whether there is a sun or not! Why is one more obvious than the other? If this had not been contained in our souls as known or assimilated, then it would not have remained so stable, would not have been confirmed over time, could not have taken root with the change of centuries and generations of people. We see that other opinions, false and empty, have disappeared with the passage of time. Who, for example, now thinks that there was a hippocentaur or a chimera? Is there an old woman so out of her mind that she would now be afraid of those monsters of the underworld, in whom they also once believed? For time destroys false inventions, but confirms the judgments of nature

6. The historical basis for the existence of higher forces. Everything is very simple: there is not a single non-religious power based on atheistic teachings. Whether it's primitive tribes or a developed European state - everywhere they believe in some kind of divine power. After all, is this a no-brainer?
7. Relationship between experience and religion. Believers often cite proven miracles as arguments of divine existence, for example, the expulsion of demons from a possessed person by priests or the ascent of blessed fire. And the way scientists criticize all this, they have no weighty arguments refuting the named miracles.

2) Criticism of the existence of evidence that God does not exist.

Each of the theories I mentioned in the previous section has its critics, who prove that God does not really exist.

I will dwell only on the second and third, since they cause the greatest controversy.

	Theory	Arguments against
1	Theory of morality	This theory is ridiculed by many, but most actively by Richard Dawkins. His arguments don't sound very pretty. Well, for example, here is one of them: “Why not then say that all people smell with different strengths, but you can only compare the degree of aroma emitted by them in relation to a perfect sample with absolute odor. Therefore, there must be an incomparable, superior to all known stinker, and we call him a god. Agree: you need to argue in a civilized manner, and not talk about stinkers.
2	Cosmological aspect of the existence of the divine principle	Undoubtedly the most discussed theory, not least due to the fact that mankind has advanced far in the study of space. All arguments come down to one thing: the existence of the universe has its own reasons, it has its own beginning and logical path of development, what is inexplicable now will be explained in the future with the development of science.

Separately, I would like to say about the teachings of Hume, which criticizes all existing arguments proving the existence of the divine principle. Hume's arguments, if summarized, are extremely simple: any of the proofs of the existence of God cannot be proved rationally, which means that it can be refuted and criticized.

Real evidence for the existence of God:

God does not exist, because many scientists say so. Is it so?

If you simply do not believe in God, then why do you need hard evidence that he does not really exist?

Some kind of worm of distrust breaks a hole in your atheistic armor? Yes please. There are many arguments proving that God does not really exist.

Choose any to argue with believers.

a) There are enough theories proving that God does not exist...

All arguments proving that God does not exist can be divided into 4 large groups:

• Empirical - those that are based on experience and practical experiments.
• Deductive, in the formation of which, first of all, logic participated.
• Inductive - private views are collected in a common teaching.
• Subjective - exclusively personal opinion of the author.

№	Group	Arguments
1	empirical	- If God is so kind and omnipotent, then why does he allow the existence of evil in this world? - If God wants to be believed in, then why doesn't he give evidence of his existence, but makes him only blindly rely on faith? - The conservative argument maintains that since natural theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief, the actual existence of such supernatural beings is superfluous unless it is clearly needed to explain these phenomena. - For some reason, atheists have to prove the existence of God. - Steve Hawking argued that before the big bang that provoked the emergence of the universe, nothing existed at all, not even time, respectively, and God could not exist.
2	Deductive	It boils down to thinking about questions such as: - Can God create a stone that he himself cannot lift? - Can God change his mind and reverse his decision? etc.
3	Inductive	The Nonsense Argument states that it makes no sense for an omnipotent and omniscient being to do anything (in particular, to create the universe), because such a being has no needs, needs or desires - all these concepts are subjectively inherent in man. Thus, the very existence of the universe contradicts the existence of an omnipotent God.
4	subjective	Many arguments that refute the existence of God are based on the subjective opinion of their author: “I say this because I want to. And you prove otherwise. Believers, by the way, do the same.

All these groups of arguments lend themselves to criticism not only from ordinary church members, but also from scientists, philosophers, and writers.

b) Is it worth it to say so confidently that God does not exist?

Your right is not to believe that God exists and to demand proof of his existence. I will not now quote the arguments of theosophists and writers who criticize atheistic theories.

I just suggest that you think about these theses about the existence of God:

1. The existence of evil does not contradict the divine being, because most often its creators are people. Even many natural disasters are the result of human criminal activity.
2. The all-seeing eye, God, the higher mind - call it what you want - should not prove anything to anyone. These are magicians in the circus who prove their skills with tricks. Here - freedom of choice, to believe or not.
3. A believer does not mean an amoeba that goes with the flow and constantly answers: "God's will for everything." Being a believer means:
   • strive for self-improvement;
   • sacrifice at least sometimes their interests for the sake of the highest good;
   • do not violate the basic commandments;
   • to give, and not just to row with both hands;
   • make this world a better place.

Is it bad to believe in miracles, even if it is irrational? Isn't it bad not to kill, not to steal, not to cheat on your loved ones, not to gossip?

So what difference does it make whether you live like a good person, based on personal convictions or on faith?

To believe whether God really exists or not is a personal matter for everyone. You do not need to impose your opinion on others, and do it in an aggressive form. Stick to your beliefs, but respect other people's opinions.

Is there evidence for the existence of God in Orthodoxy? How to prove that God exists, that He exists? Read the article by Protodeacon Andrey Kuraev.

How to prove the existence of God?

A lot of them. But all of them are tactful enough not to impose themselves on those who have no desire to understand them or who simply lack neither the experience of life nor the experience of thought in order to discern their correctness.

The most traditional argument points to the reasonableness of nature as a manifestation of the Creative mind. Imagine that we found a log house in the forest. Would it ever occur to us to say that hurricanes just happen here often and one of them uprooted several trees, twisted them, hewed them, sawed them and then accidentally folded them in such an order that a log house appeared, and the hurricanes of the following years accidentally inserted window frames into it and doors, flooring and roofing? It is unlikely that there will be such an “evolutionist”. But after all, the structure is not only cells, but even DNA molecules are incomparable in their complexity, not only with a forest hut, but also with a modern skyscraper. So is it reasonable to persist in believing that many, many blind hurricanes have given birth to life? It was Shakespeare's medicine man who could say, "Take a little dirt, a little sun, and you'll have a Nile crocodile." But today, with the help of reason, trying to prove that there is no Reason in the world is not a very reasonable exercise.

By the way, Darwin's "theory of evolution" proved only one thing - its boundless confidence in its own merits. What did Darwin see as the "engine of progress"? – In the “struggle of species for survival” and in “natural selection”. Both, of course, exist (although modern ecology says that species cooperate rather than fight, and Darwin too hastily transferred the mores of early capitalist society to nature). But after all, explaining everything by “natural selection” is the same as saying that AvtoVAZ develops and releases new models only because it has a technical control department that does not release defective cars outside the plant. It's not OTK that creates new models! And "mutations" can't explain much here. They certainly exist, but if they are only random, then they are nothing more than a series of hurricanes. It is more likely that a hurricane that swept through an aircraft graveyard will assemble a brand new superliner than random "mutations" - molecular-level hurricanes - will create a living cell or a new species. In the end, in “neo-Darwinism”, the theory of evolution looks like this: if you hit the black-and-white “Horizon” for a long time, it will eventually become a color “Panasonic”. If you hit the roach for a long time on the countertop, someday it will have wings and it will sing like a nightingale.

Does this prove that there is a God? No - this only proves that it is impossible with impunity (to preserve one's mental abilities) to assert that "science has proven that there is no God." This proves that a superhuman Mind is operating in the world. And he proves it by pointing only to the terrible, inhuman absurdity of the opposite statement... And whether a person will identify this Mind with the God of the Bible is already a matter of his intimate and completely free choice...

Or here's another argument - cosmological. Everything that exists has a reason, doesn't it? The world also exists. And, therefore, it must also have a reason for its existence. What can be outside the material world? Only the non-material, spiritual world, in which there are no reasons, but there is Freedom, and which therefore does not itself need any higher reason outside of it ... To be honest, this is not a mathematical proof. Rather, it is an aesthetic argument. If a person has a certain philosophical taste, if he feels the aroma of the words "being" and "universe", he will feel the disharmony, the ugliness of the opposite assumption. In any case, Hegel called an attempt to build an endless series of matryoshka universes that insanely and senselessly, mechanically aimlessly give birth to each other, called “bad infinity”.

In general, as it is easy to see, all arguments about the existence of God are based not on statements, but on reducing the opposite opinion to absurdity.

Have you ever wondered what world you have placed yourself in by your own unbelief? If not, look at the people who thought about this for a long time, thought painfully: they thought not only with their minds, but also with their hearts.

“So what do we rely on? Where is that place in the universe where our actions would not be dictated to us by our cruel need and our cruel compulsion? Where is the place in the universe where we could settle down without a mask and without the fear of being banished into the dank cold of the December midnight hour? Can there even be such a place in this world for our naked soul, where it can warm itself, where we could take off all this load that is alien to us and, finally, give rest to the tired muscles of our body and the even more exhausted muscles of our face? Where, finally, is the place in the universe where we would like to die? For it is this, and only this, that is the place where we should live.” It was in the seventies that the philosopher Nikolai Trubnikov, who had already gone into the world he was looking for, wrote not for publication and not for searches.

But for these lines, written in the late twenties, Alexei Fedorovich Losev paid for years in the camps: “The only and exclusively original work of new European materialism lies precisely in the myth of the universal dead Leviathan, the universal dead monster. You live in the cold fornication of a numb world space and mutilate yourself in the black prison of nihilistic natural science that you have built yourself. And I love the sky, blue-blue, dear-native ... Incredible boredom emanates from the world of Newtonian mechanics, from the absolute darkness and inhuman cold of interplanetary spaces. What is it like not a black hole, not even a grave, and not even a bathhouse with spiders, because both of them are still more interesting and speak of something human. That I was on earth, under my native sky, I heard about the universe “it won’t move”. And then all of a sudden there is nothing: neither the earth nor the sky, "it will not move." Somewhere they kicked me in the neck, into some kind of emptiness. Reading an astronomy textbook, I feel like someone is kicking me out of my own house with a stick. For what?"

The most interesting argument - it is called "ontological" - says simply: God simply logically cannot not exist. That is, to say the phrase “God does not exist” means to say a logical contradiction, because the attribute “to exist” is included in the logical definition of the Higher Being ... You say, you can’t prove anything like that? And you will be wrong. There are three things in the world to which such proof applies. First, it's me. Remember Cartesian “I think, therefore I am”.

This was just an attempt, contrary to total skepticism and doubt, to prove that at least something really exists, and I (or some space Wanderer) did not dream of it in a dream. If I doubt the existence of myself, then I already exist, because if I did not exist, there would be no one to doubt. To say “I do not exist” is to say absurdity, it means that I really am. Secondly, such a course of argument is applicable to existence as such. To say "being does not exist" is also to say nonsense. But God is Absolute Being, and to say about Him “Absolute Being does not exist” is an absurdity to an infinite degree.

Earnestly? Yes, but only for a person with a culture of philosophical thinking. Einstein's arguments are also understandable only to people with a culture of mathematical thought...

But in the end, no one can be forced to think logically and rationally...,

Now it's time to talk about what the participants in the historical conversation at the Patriarch's Ponds alluded to.

As you remember, Ivan Bezdomny, a worthy representative of a country in which “whatever you miss is not there,” advised sending Kant to Solovki for three years. The Kaliningrad thinker deserved such a harsh measure in the eyes of the Soviet poet for his "moral proof of the existence of God."

Kant begins with a premise already known to us: nothing happens in the world without a cause. The principle of determinism (that is, causal relationships) is the most general law of the universe. Man also obeys him. But the fact of the matter is that - not always. There are cases when a person acts freely, not automatically compelled by anything. If we say that every human act has its own reasons, then it is not people who should be rewarded for feats, but these very “reasons”, and they should be imprisoned instead of criminals. Where there is no freedom, there is no responsibility and there can be neither law nor morality. Kant says that to deny the freedom of man is to deny all morality. On the other hand, even if I can see in the actions of other people the reasons why they act in this way in every situation, then as soon as I look at myself, they will have to admit that, by and large, I act freely. . No matter how the surrounding circumstances or my past, the features of my character or heredity influence me, I know that at the moment of choice I have a second when I could become higher than myself ... There is a second when, as Kant puts it, the history of the entire universe as if it begins with me: neither in the past nor around me is there anything that I would dare to refer to in order to justify the meanness on the threshold of which I stand ...

This means that we have two facts - 1) everything in the world lives according to the law of causality and 2) a person in rare moments of his freedom does not obey this law. And there is one more principle: on the territory of a given state, only those persons who have the right of “extraterritoriality”, i.e., are not subject to its laws. diplomatic corps. So, a person does not obey the Basic Law of our Universe. This means that the person is not part of it. We have extraterritorial status in this world; we are messengers. We are the ambassadors of that other, non-material world, in which not the principle of determinism operates, but the principle of Freedom and Love. There is a Being in the world that does not obey the laws of matter. And we are involved in it. In general: we are free - which means that God exists. Kant's Russian contemporary, Gavriil Derzhavin, came to the same conclusion in his ode "God": "I am, and therefore You are!"

In general, “proofs of the existence of God” should not be given too much importance. Faith that is pulled out by the tongs of arguments is worth little. The existence of God, as Ivan Kireevsky wrote in the last century, is not proved, but shown.

A man does not become a Christian because someone has him against the wall with evidence. Just one day he himself touched the Shrine with his soul. Or - himself; or - as one Orthodox theologian said: "no one would ever become a monk if one day he did not see on the face of another person the radiance of eternal life."

The Church does not seek to prove the existence of God. The way of her proofs is different: “Blessed are the pure in heart; for they will see God.” So said Christ. And after one and a half thousand years, Pascal will advise a familiar skeptic: "Try to strengthen your faith not by multiplying the number of proofs, but by reducing the number of your own sins."

Theology is an experimental science. A believer differs from an unbeliever in that the circle of his experience is simply wider. This is how a person who has an ear for music differs from a person who cannot hear the harmony of consonances. This is the difference between a person who himself has visited Jerusalem, and a person who claims that this cannot be, because Jerusalem and what they say about it is a myth of ignorant medieval barbarians.

If a person has the experience of the Meeting, how much changes in his world! And if he loses it, how much dims. One young man wrote at the dawn of the 19th century: “When a person has been vouchsafed this virtue, union with Christ, he meets the blows of fate with calmness and inner silence, courageously resists the storms of passions, fearlessly endures the fury of malice. How can you not endure suffering if you know that by persevering in Christ, by working hard, you glorify God Himself?!” Then, having renounced Christ, the author of these wonderful lines about union wrote all his subsequent life only about alienation. This young man's name was Karl Marx...

1. K. Marx. The union of believers with Christ according to the Gospel of John (15:1-14). Final gymnasium essay (quoted by G. Küng. Does God exist? 1982, p.177).

Deacon Andrei Kuraev. It's all the same as believing. M., 1999