All evidence for the existence of God. Irresistible Proof of God's Existence

An absolute shock to the scientific world was the speech of the famous philosophy professor Anthony Flew. Under the pressure of indisputable facts, the scientist admitted that atheism is a clear delusion.

The scientist, who would be well over 80 today, was one of the pillars of scientific atheism for many years. For decades, Flue has been publishing books and giving lectures based on the thesis that faith in the Almighty is unjustified, the Meta portal writes.
Since 2004, however, a series of scientific discoveries has forced the great atheist advocate to change his views. Flue publicly stated that he was wrong, and the universe could not have arisen on its own - it was obviously created by someone more powerful than we can imagine.

According to Flue, earlier he, like other atheists, was convinced that once upon a time, the first living matter simply appeared from dead matter. “Today, it is impossible to imagine the construction of an atheistic theory of the origin of life and the appearance of the first organism of reproduction,” Flue says.

According to the scientist, modern data on the structure of the DNA molecule irrefutably indicate that it could not have arisen on its own, but is someone's development. The genetic code and the literally encyclopedic volumes of information that a molecule stores in itself refute the possibility of a blind coincidence.

Miraculous creation

The Internet was blown up by the revelation of the famous British scientist Anthony Flew (Antony Garrard Newton Flew), with whom he spoke, renouncing his - atheistic - faith. It happened back in 2004, when Flue turned 81:

“My erroneous views have undoubtedly influenced the worldview of many people, and I want to correct the enormous harm that I apparently caused them,” said the scientist, who had previously enthusiastically and vehemently read atheistic lectures in various higher educational institutions.

The other day, Flue's revelation of almost a decade ago surfaced through the efforts of bloggers. And it provoked an enthusiastic response from many. Which is not surprising for those who were not familiar with him - a revelation. When famous people, and even more so atheists, agree that God exists, it is shocking. Makes me want to understand why.

Here is what Anthony Flew himself explained at the time:

“The biological study of DNA has shown that a truly incredible combination of many different factors is required for the emergence of life, and this undoubtedly leads to the conclusion that someone who is able to create is involved in all this ... The existing facts convinced me of the absurdity of the theory that claims that the first living the organism originated from inanimate matter, and then, through evolution, turned into a creation of extraordinary complexity ... Now, even the very idea of ​​​​the possibility of the origin of the first organism capable of self-reproduction, according to the scenario of spontaneous natural evolution, seems blasphemous to me ...

Flu is not alone. In fact, he is echoed by Francis Crick, who was one of the first to describe the helical structure of the DNA molecule:

- In the light of the knowledge that is available to us today, the only conclusion that an open-minded person can come to is the recognition of the fact that life is the result of some wonderful creation, otherwise how can one explain the amazingly precise interaction of a huge number of factors necessary for the origin of life and its development ...

And here is what the American biochemist Professor Michael Behe, an employee of Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and the author of the book Darwin's Black Box, recently admitted:

“Over the past 50 years, biochemists have uncovered many important mysteries of the human cell. Tens of thousands of people have devoted their lives to laboratory research in order to uncover these secrets. But all the efforts expended to study the living organism clearly yielded one result: "Creation."

Is there any point in praying

“The Lord not only exists, but also intervenes in our lives,” argues the well-known geneticist and former head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, in his bestseller The Language of God, who his own research also made a deeply religious person and the author of a sensational saying: "There is no contradiction between faith in God and science." The scientist refers to the quantum mechanism of uncertainty, which makes the surrounding world free, unpredictable in its development and completely inexplicable.

“God certainly controls the processes of the universe,” writes Collins, “but in ways so subtle that they are elusive to modern scientists. In this sense, science opens the door to the realization of divine influence without encroaching on the existing laws of nature.

According to Collins, it turns out that since God is messing with us at the quantum level, it makes sense to pray to him. And ask for help.

By the way, according to the memoirs of Darwin's contemporaries, when he was already close to death and he was asked: "So who created the world?" he replied, "God."

Philosopher, researcher at the Russian State University for the Humanities Alexei Grigoriev:

- The hopes of scientists of the twentieth century that the world will be known in a few decades have not yet been justified. And today we do not know the answers to seemingly the most elementary questions: what is energy, electron, attraction? None of the modern brilliant designers are able to create such a universal machine as a person is. No engineer will build a system in which, like in the Universe, an amazing balance of planets would be preserved, which would not allow humanity to burn out or freeze. Are not the physical constants that define the structure of our world surprising: gravitational, magnetic, and many others? Many years ago, scientists proved that if these constants were different, for example, differed from the current ones by only one percent, then neither atoms nor galaxies would have arisen. Not to mention people.

The inexplicable orderliness and consistency of the structure of the Universe and man lead many scientists to believe in the Creator.

British physicist Martin John Rees, who won this year's Templeton Prize, believes that the universe is a very complex thing. The scientist, who has more than 500 scientific papers to his credit, received $1.4 million for proving the existence of the Creator, although the physicist himself is an atheist, the Korrespondent edition adds.

“According to the director of the International Institute of Theoretical and Applied Physics, Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Anatoly Akimov, the existence of God has been proven by scientific methods,” Interfax reports.

“God exists, and we can observe the manifestations of His will. This is the opinion of many scientists, they do not just believe in the Creator, but rely on some knowledge,” he said in an interview published on Friday by the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper.

At the same time, the scientist noted that in past centuries, many physicists believed in God. Moreover, until the time of Isaac Newton, there was no separation between science and religion. Priests were engaged in science, because they were the most educated people. Newton himself had a theological education and often repeated: "I derive the laws of mechanics from the laws of God."
When scientists invented the microscope and began to study what was happening inside the cell, the processes of duplication and division of chromosomes caused them a stunning reaction: “How could this be if all this was not provided by the Almighty ?!”

“Indeed,” A. Akimov added, “if we talk about the fact that a person appeared on Earth as a result of evolution, then, taking into account the frequency of mutations and the speed of biochemical processes, it would take much more time to create a person from primary cells than the age of the Universe itself” .

“In addition,” he continued, “calculations were made that showed that the number of quantum elements in the volume of the radio observable Universe cannot be less than 10155, and it cannot but have superintelligence.”

“If all this is a single system, then, considering it as a computer, we ask: what is beyond the power of a computing system with so many elements? These are unlimited possibilities, more than the most sophisticated and modern computer by an incommensurable number of times!” - emphasized the scientist.
In his opinion, what various philosophers called the Universal Mind, the Absolute, this is a super-powerful system, which we identify with the potentialities of the Almighty.

“This,” says A. Akimov, “does not contradict the main provisions of the Bible. There, in particular, it is said that God is omnipresent, he is present always and everywhere. We see that this is so: the Lord has unlimited possibilities of influencing everything that happens. A. Akimov was baptized at the age of 55. "Did you believe in God?" the priest asked him when he arrived at the church. “No, I just realized that He cannot not exist!” - answered the scientist.

Most people in the world believe in the existence of God. Objectively, however, to argue about its existence is not an easy task. However, you can provide a strong argument that it does not exist using scientific, philosophical, and cultural evidence. Regardless of the approach you take, when discussing the existence of God, remember to remain polite and tactful towards your interlocutor.

Steps

Part 1

Point out that living beings are not perfect. The imperfection argument points out that if God is so perfect, why did he create us and so many other living beings so badly? For example, we are vulnerable to many diseases, our bones break easily, and as we age, our bodies and minds decline. You can also mention our badly-designed spines, inflexible knees and pelvic bones that lead to difficult births. All this is biological proof that God does not exist (or proof that he created us imperfect, and therefore there is no need to worship him).

• Believers can challenge this argument by arguing that God is perfect and that he made us as perfect as possible. They may also claim that everything we think of as flaws actually has a purpose in God's creation.

1. Point out that everything supernatural can be explained in scientific terms. The "God of White Spots" argument is very often used when people are trying to prove the existence of God. It is based on the fact that although modern science explains most of everything that exists, it still cannot explain some things. You can refute this claim by saying that the number of things we don't understand continues to decrease every year, and that scientific explanations have replaced theistic explanations, while supernatural or theistic explanations have never replaced scientific ones.

   • For example, you can cite evolution as an area where science has corrected the previous god-centered reason for the existence of such a diverse species in the world.
   • Point out that religion has often been used to explain the inexplicable. The Greeks used Poseidon to explain the occurrence of earthquakes, which we now know are due to the movement of tectonic plates.

2. Point out the inaccuracies of creationism. Creationism is the belief that God created the world, usually relatively recently, about 5000-6000 years ago. Take advantage of the vast amount of evidence that refutes this, such as facts about evolution, fossils, radiocarbon dating, and ice banks, and use them to challenge the existence of God.

   • For example, you could say the following: “We are constantly finding rocks that are millions and even billions of years old. Doesn't that prove there is no God?

   Part 2

   Cultural Evidence That Refutes the Existence of God

   1. Point out that belief in God was socially determined. There are several variations of this idea. You can explain this by the fact that in relatively poor countries, almost everyone believes in God, but in fairly rich and developed countries, the number of believers is noticeably lower. You can also say that more educated people are more inclined towards the idea of ​​atheism than people with a lower level of education. Together, these two facts indicate that God is only a product of cultures, and belief in him depends on the personal circumstances of each.

      Just because the majority believes in God doesn't mean it's true. One of the common reasons for believing in God is that most people believe in him. This “general agreement” argument may also suggest that because so many people believe in God, such belief must be natural. However, you can smash that idea by stating that the fact that most people believe something doesn't say it's true. For example, you might say that during a certain period of time, most people thought slavery was acceptable.

      • Say that if a person is not involved in religion or in the idea of ​​the existence of God, they will never believe in him.

   2. Expand the diversity of religious beliefs. The distinctive and characteristic features of the Christian, Hindu and Buddhist God are very different from each other. Therefore, you can say that even if God exists, it is impossible to determine which God should be worshiped.

      • This idea is known as "Argument from Conflicting Religions".

   3. Point out contradictions in religious texts. Most religions consider their sacred texts to be the result and evidence of the existence of their God. If you can point out inconsistencies and other flaws in the sacred texts, you will provide a solid argument that God does not exist.

   Part 3

   Philosophical Evidence That Refutes the Existence of God

   If God existed, he would not allow so much unbelief. This argument suggests that in places where atheism is prevalent, God would have descended or personally intervened in worldly affairs and revealed himself to atheists. The very fact that there are so many atheists and that God has not tried to convince them through divine intervention means that there is no God.

   • Believers can challenge this claim by saying that God allows free will, so unbelief is the inevitable outcome. They can cite specific examples in their sacred texts of times when God revealed himself to those who refused to believe in him.

   1. Reveal contradictions in the other person's beliefs. If his faith is based on the idea that God created the world because "Everything has a beginning and an end," ask him, "If that's the case, then who created God?" By this you point out that the other person incorrectly assumed that God exists, when in fact, the same premise (that everything has a beginning) leads to two contradictory conclusions.

      • People who believe in God can dispute this by saying that, being omnipotent, he is outside of time and space, and therefore is an exception to the rule that everything has a beginning and an end. In such a case, you must direct the argument towards the contradiction of the idea of ​​omnipotence.

   2. Reveal the problem of evil. The problem of evil is how God and evil can exist at the same time. In other words, if God exists and he is good, then he must destroy all evil. You might say, "If God truly cared for us, then there would be no wars."

      • Your interlocutor can answer like this: “The government of man is ungodly and erroneous. People do evil, not God. Thus, your opponent can again resort to the idea of ​​free will and challenge the idea that God is responsible for all the atrocities that occur in the world.
      • You can go further and say that if there is a bad God who allows evil to happen, he is not worth worshiping.

   3. Show that morality does not need religious belief. Many believe that without religion, the planet would be plunged into a chaos of immorality and immorality. However, you can say that your own actions (or any other atheist) do not differ much from the actions of a believer. Recognize that while you are not perfect, no one is, and that believing in God does not necessarily make a person more moral or righteous.

      • You can refute the idea of ​​a more moral believer by saying that not only does religion not lead to goodness, it leads to evil, since many religious people do immoral things precisely in the name of their God. For example, you might mention the Spanish Inquisition or religious terrorism around the world.
      • Moreover, animals that are unable to understand the human concept of religion show clear signs of an instinctive understanding of moral behavior and what is right and wrong.

   4. Show that the good life does not require God. Many people believe that only with faith in God can a person live a rich, happy and fulfilling life. However, you can point to the fact that many non-believers live happier and more successful lives than those who choose a religion.

      • For example, talk about Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and how much success they have had despite the fact that they both don't believe in God.

   5. Explain the conflict between omniscience and free will. It seems that omniscience (the ability to know everything) is contrary to many beliefs. Free will is the idea that you are responsible for your actions and therefore you are also responsible for them. Most religions believe in both concepts, even though they are not compatible.

   6. Explain that God cannot be omnipotent. Omnipotence is the ability to do everything. If God could do everything, then he could, for example, draw a square circle. But since this is contrary to all logic, there is no reason to believe that God is omnipotent.

      • You can suggest another logically impossible principle. God cannot know and not know something at the same time.
      • You can also say that if God is omnipotent, why does he allow natural disasters, massacres and wars to happen?

   7. Pass it on to them to prove the existence of God. In truth, it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Anything can exist, but in order for a faith to be recognized and worthy of attention, indisputable evidence is needed in its favor. Suggest that the believer provide evidence that God does exist.

      • For example, you might ask what happens after death. Many believers also believe in an afterlife. Have them provide evidence for the existence of this afterlife.
      • Spiritual entities like God, the Devil, heaven, hell, angels, demons, and so on have never been (and cannot be) studied scientifically. Point out the fact that it is simply impossible to prove the existence of all this.

   Part 4

   Preparing to Discuss Religion If your arguments are not presented in a simple and understandable way, your message will be lost. For example, when explaining how a person's religion is determined by their culture, you must make sure that your opponent agrees with each of your premises (the main points leading to the conclusion).
   • You can say the following: "Mexico was populated by Catholics, wasn't it?"
   • When they answer yes, move on to the next premise: “So most people in Mexico are Catholic?”
   • When they say yes again, move on to your conclusion by saying, "The reason most people in Mexico believe in God is because of the history of religious culture in this country."

3. Be compliant when discussing the existence of God. Faith in God is a rather sensitive topic. Approach the argument as if it were a conversation in which both you and your opponent have strong arguments in their favor. Speak in a friendly manner. Ask them why they believe so strongly. Patiently listen to their reasons and consider the answer to what you hear.

   • Ask your opponent to talk about sources (books or websites) where you can learn more about their point of view and faith.
   • Belief in God is complex, and statements about the existence of God (for or against) cannot be taken as facts.

4. Stay calm. Arguing about the existence of God can become emotionally intense. If you become too agitated or aggressive during an argument, you may start to ramble and/or say something that you later regret. Breathe deeply to stay calm. Inhale deeply through your nose for five seconds, and then exhale through your mouth for three seconds. Keep doing this until you calm down.

   • Slow down the speed of your speech so that you have more time to think about what you want to say and not blurt out something that you will later regret.
   • If you start to get angry, tell your opponent: "Let's agree that everyone will remain in their opinion," then disperse.
   • Be polite when you discuss God. Do not forget that for many people the topic of religion is quite sensitive. Don't use offensive language like "bad", "stupid" or "crazy". Don't call your opponent names.
   • Instead of reaching an agreement, at the end of an argument, your opponent may say a hackneyed phrase: "I'm sorry you're going to hell." Don't respond in this passive-aggressive style.

• You don't have to argue about the existence of God with every believer you meet. Good friends don't have to argue with each other about everything. If you're always trying to argue with a friend or try to screw them over, be prepared to have one less friend.
• Many choose religion to try to overcome a difficult stage in life, such as addiction or the tragic death of a loved one. Although religion can positively influence a person's life and help him in difficult times, this does not mean that the ideas underlying religion are true. If you meet someone claiming to have been helped by religion, be careful and be careful not to offend him. You don't have to avoid this person or pretend to understand them.

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, finds more and more confirmations 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, which 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 science, 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 it just took 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(that is, chaos, disorder) systems. Evolution how 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, 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, because 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 and rested his works," 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". Likewise, 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 how 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.

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 produces 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 she will have wings and she 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." They kicked me out somewhere 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 starts 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 another 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 pincers 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 once 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 honored with 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