Hmm, I think it is interesting that you chose such a topic as "Prove God Exists." There is absolutely no proof to the unbelieving mind that resists God, and there is sufficient evidence for those believers who know by the Spirit of God through faith that God exists and what Christ did for them.  

Hereby, I will offer no proof, but I will give an interesting topic of discussion (one like you wanted). The (re-)birth of modern day Israel. Now I'm not going to get into the whole dregs of 'politics and rights' surrounding the issue, although I am open to them in another post, and will gladly express my views regarding it.

In the six day war that was fought, Israel was surrounded by a host of several nations, out-numbered and out-gunned. Yet in spite of this, they succeeded. Was God there helping them? Or was this simply coincidence, and the result of human effort. There are many testimonies and stories from those involved that would suggest otherwise.

Here is a link to one of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll1blSOiQII

This was taken from the series Against All Odds: Israel Survives.

But to some good sense isn't enough, it has to be proof! Unfortunately there is no proof, although historical facts and events ought to give one good sense to believe that it happened. To them, there will never be proof until they meet God, or, as I pray would happen to them, that God would grip their hearts with the reality of His presence. Historical facts of the testimonies of the apostles of Jesus give weight that it would not make sense that they would die for Jesus if He had not risen, cause that would mean they died for something they knew not to be true! But that isn't good enough to actually believe that He had, not to the mind that wants proof!

In the book of Isaiah, the Lord says, Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is none else; I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. Consider the prophecies of things the Lord spoke of that hundreds and sometimes thousands of years beforehand that came true, consider the prophecies of the Messiah Jesus who was to come, from His birth, to the way He came, to the things He did in His life, to His miracles, to His death, to His resurrection (I can go into detail with anyone later if they want). Do these things make good sense to believe in God? Answer: YES! But that is not enough for some, because they want proof. To disbelieve, you have to deny these things, the miracles I mentioned. Actually to disbelieve - well, you disbelieve because you want to, at least in most cases. There are plenty of things that have happened in history, and there are great things still happening to this day - God is still alive and well and working in the lives of others - that have weight and through good sense and looking into these things one would see God if only they would accept them. But if that isn't good enough, well, you decided that wasn't good enough. Want God to 'prove' His existence to everyone and make it undeniable? He already has in Jesus. Want more than that? Well, He'll come one day and show everyone. But until then it will never happen. Sorry. You will just have to decide whether the evidence is evidence enough.

God gripped my heart, and opened my eyes to see, and I see the great things He does all the time. He changed my desires, and now am humbled to see my need for Him in my life, and want to do His will. And I am willing to give up my life for my faith. I pray He will do it for you. 

This is definitely a personal opinionated thread . . . I like you but I don't like this thread. Anyway you want proof that God exists? His son Jesus. The prophecy, the bible!
GHOSTS! <---easy way to prove God exists. I really don't care what you non-believers think, but to all of you who are with me and believe that God exists, ooh-rah! But seriously.. I don't know about this thread. I'm not trying to bash you for making it, but it is kind of disrespectful for us who do believe in God. Well it is disrespectful for me that you are almost questioning his existence. Tsk tsk, oh well you'll see I guess. I just would like to encourage you to get saved, read the bible, and try to avoid sinning.
God is real <3

Klutch : I think you're misinformed, geeo didn't make the thread to disprove God's existence.

geeogree :

As a Christian let me say first of all that I believe in the Triune God of the Bible (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) who is one God in essence yet three in person. And I believe the Bible is His revealed, inspired word to mankind. But let me also say that I do not believe that there is such a thing as proof God exists. Yes there is plenty of evidence that point to God, but there is no one "silver bullet" that we can show anyone that can prove God's existence to an unbeliever to the point where they cannot deny his existence. But like I said, there is plenty of evidence. I want to look at one of those proofs in this post and that is the idea of Intelligent Design and more specifically, the concept of irreducible complexity. So without further delay, here goes:

INTELLIGENT DESIGN     One of those things that comes up pretty often, especially in contemporary society, is the idea of the relationship between religion and science. Underlying that idea is the relationship between religion (Church) and secular society (State); how those things do or do not work together. One common misconception is that the separation of Church and State is in the U.S. Constitution, it is actually found in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. The idea of the state not supporting or tearing down a particular religious faith is in the Constitution, but the separation of Church and State is not. The idea that religion cannot interact anywhere in contemporary society is just not there.    One of the ways that Church and State plays itself out in contemporary society is through the discussion of the relationship between religion and science. How should religion and science relate, or should those two things relate at all? Science, when properly executed and understood, will not disagree with scripture. The same God who wrote scripture, wrote nature. So what happens is we have to understand that our foundation for science is the important aspect of science. If we try to operate autonomously without any real, objective foundation, we then come to Darwinism, or we come to naturalism; which, by the way, Darwinism is the foundation for. When properly understood, science can be an act of worship, because you are delving into the specifics of what God has made, and you can begin to look at the complexity in nature that point to a creative designer. Science and theology won’t disagree as long as science is interpreted by theology.    The idea of intelligent design is much debated issue in contemporary society. There have actually been a number of Kansas State Supreme Court cases which eventually made their way to the U.S. Supreme Court over what kinds of textbooks can be used in high school biology classes. So the idea of intelligent design is widespread, and so is evolutionary biology, which is why intelligent design is so important.         

I.      What is intelligent design?
a.       William Dembski, one of the original proponents of ID defines it as the science that studies signs of intelligence.                                                
i.      What does that definition tell us or not tell us?
1.      Tells us there are signs of intelligence.
2.      Does not tell us who or what the intelligence is. – This is the main point that people who are anti ID refuse to recognize. ID does not care about the nature of the intelligence. It is not meant to answer questions about the intelligence. The only thing it is concerned with is looking at the universe and saying that Darwinism cannot explain it all. ID looks at the signs that the intelligence has left behind. There is a diversity of ID theorists; not just Christian. We have theists, Jews, Muslims, and so on who are ID theorists.    

II.      How do you find signs of ID? – You look to “specified complexity”. – If you find specified complexity in any system in nature, then it can be said to show a sign of intelligence. Specified complexity has three components that are looked for to see if you can find signs of intelligence; contingency, specificity, and complexity.
a.       Contingency – Something is contingent if it is dependent on something else for its existence. A podium for example is contingent upon the builder of the podium. All humans are contingent upon their parents.                                                              
i.      On the other hand if something is necessary, then it is not dependent on anything else for its existence. In the Christian worldview especially, we would say that there is only one thing that is necessary in the universe and that is God and everything else is dependent upon. God is by definition and necessary being and everything is contingent upon Him. So if you find something that is dependant on something else for its existence you see the first sign of specified complexity.
b.      Specificity – Specificity is the idea that there is a recognizable, preexisting pattern. It is not something that you are reading onto it, it is a pattern, it is a recognizable pattern that is already there.
c.       Complexity – This had to do with the recognized pattern. A complex pattern is something that cannot happen by chance. For example, images of the presidents on Mt Rushmore are a complex pattern. It could not have happened by chance or random erosion, rain, and wind. It took a pattern maker to make those images. It is not that you are reading a pattern onto the mountain; it is a complex pattern that could not have happened by chance, and is dependent on someone else for its existence.                                                              
i.      Irreducible complexity – When it comes to specified complexity there are some very good examples in biology of things that are very complex and show signs of intelligence. Irreducible complexity is one of those great examples that show specified complexity. Irreducible complexity is a term that was coined by biochemist Michael Behe in a book that he wrote entitled Darwin’s Black Box. In the book, Behe argues very simply, that there are some systems in biology that cannot be explained by Darwinian means. In the book he gives a number of examples of these systems. The most famous of all the systems he discusses as irreducibly complex is a cellular flagellum.                      ii.      Cellular flagellum – It is a cell that has a tail on it that functions as an outboard motor. It gives the cell the ability to move around. These tails spin at 100,000 revolutions per minute, and it can stop instantaneously with a quarter of a turn, change directions, and go anywhere it wants to on a x,y,z axis. This is stopping power and speed that is unmatched in nature. This is a very complex system. We’re not even talking about the cell here, we a just talking about the tail. To make just that tail there are a little over 40 individual, distinct parts that are used. Here’s the kicker, all of these 40 plus part must come together at the same time and in the correct order for the tail to function. In Darwinism, natural selection according to Darwin says that if there is some trait that evolves from one generation to the next and that trait is helpful for survival, the natural selection chooses in favor of that trait and it will be passed on to the next generation. On the other hand, if a trait is developed that is not helpful for survival, then natural selection picks against that trait, and it is not passed on to the next generation. Behe’s argument is asking if there is anyway to go from one cell without a tail to one cell that has a tail. Is there anyway for Darwinian evolutionary theory to explain it. If Darwinian evolutionary theory is going to explain this is it has to explain the origin of all the 40 plus parts and it has to explain the parts being put together in the correct order in order for the tail to work. If the tail is not put together with all the right parts and in the correct order, than Darwinian evolutionary theory say that the tail will not be passed on to the next generation. According to Darwinian theory, what has to happen for that next generation cell to have that tail, the tail has to function, otherwise natural selection will pick against that tail and it will not be passed on, it is gone. So how does Darwinian theory account for all these parts developing and coming together in the right order in the next generation of cell? It can’t Darwin says that natural selection works in gradual steps. According to Darwinian theory, that cell might be able to develop at most 3 or 4 parts needed for the tail in one generation, and then 3 or 4 in the next one, and so on. What’s the problem with that? The problem is that natural selection would pick against those developing parts because they are serving no purpose. Some Darwinian theorist would argue then that these parts are already in the cell in different places, being used in different systems, and what the new cell does it borrows the parts from those other systems and forms the new parts needed, and then in the next generation, all of those parts are passed on. There is still a problem with that argument because out of the more than 40 needed parts needed for the tail, only 10 are already found in the tail in some other system. So now at the very least, that cell is going to have to develop more that 30 unique parts to pass on to the next generation for that tail to function. Darwinian evolutionary theory cannot explain that. We already said that according to Darwinian theory, at best, 3 or 4 new unique parts could develop There is no way from Darwin’s perspective to explain where these more than 30 unique parts come from and the fact that they all had to come together at the same time and in the correct order. So what Behe says in his book is that this is an irreducibly complex system. When you take it down to its smallest parts, you can’t reduce it anymore. You can’t make it any smaller or break it down anymore. And once you break it down to its smallest parts, it is so complex, that Darwinian theory cannot explain it. What Behe then says, making the next step, is what must happen for the tail to function, is there must be some type of intelligent designer out there that has given the cell these parts and has put them together in the correct order. We see that it is contingent, it is specific, and it is incredibly complex, so much so that it is irreducibly complex. It shows signs of intelligence.                                                          
iii.      Behe does not anywhere in his book present the gospel. That is not his concern. His concern it to look at the fact that evolutionary theory cannot explain this type of specified complexity, and if you supposed to have a school system that is supposed to teach all the theories that are out there, then let’s really have a system that teaches all the theories including this one. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want a public school system that teaches our children about God. Think about it. If public schools are going to teach kids about God, then you have to write a theology test for the public school teachers to pass. Who is going to write the test, administer the test, or grade the test? What is going to be the content of the test? Will it be Catholic? Christian? Muslim? Deist? What if you have a school teacher that is a Buddist or a Wiccan? The last thing you want is the State deciding what to teach you children about God. That is your responsibility, to teach you children the Bible and theology, with the Church coming along side you. Just read Deuteronomy 6 and Ephesians 6. And so, this is not Dembski’s concern, or Behe’s concern. It is not the concern of ID to have creationism or God or the gospel taught in school. What they are concerned with is to show that Darwinian theory cannot explain all the complexities that we see in biology and nature.  

III.      Having said all that, why is this such a hot-button issue? Why has this gone all the way to the Supreme Court? Could it be that it is because there is an element of this where if they acknowledge that ID is a valid theory, then have to acknowledge that there is some kind of intelligence that exists outside of nature, that could be God, and they don’t want to deal with that because as Romans 1 says, they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness so they want to squash it? That really is it. This is a worldview issue. For Darwinian evolutionary theorists, for naturalists, there is nothing outside the box and that box is nature. God or gods or any kind of ID are not in the box. The whole point is Darwinians don’t like it because it goes against their whole system. If ID is the case, Darwinism is false and the whole thing falls apart. Darwin himself even said that if there was one system in nature that his theory could not account for, then his theory would fall apart. Well, ID theorists and scientists have indeed found systems in nature, such as the flagellum tail that Darwinian theory cannot account for.

I got a summon to this thread again and I find it interesting to see the assumptions people made about me based on the thread title.

I believe in God and was simply interested in the reasons people have for believing in God. I used the title to make it controversial enough that people would post here

geeogree :

For the record, I personally was not making any assumptions about you. My suspicion was that you do believe in God, based on your initial post in the thread and the fact that you have a Bible as one of your accessories on your profile.

By the way, what do you think of the Intelligent Design argument I offered, specifically the idea of irreducible complexity?

"I think therefore I am" -René Descartes

The only thing thing you can be sure of is that you exist in someway, because its theoretically possible that all of your senses have lied to you your entire life, and so its possible that humans don't exist or that even planet Earth does not exist, but you are really just a neural mess in space that is hallucinating the life you life in the planet possibly fictional Earth at the moment.
Possible exception are mathematical formulas, as no matter what or who exist the rules of math state that 1+1=2.

Because of this its actually impossible to prove pretty much anything to anyone else, let alone God.

There is really just information that supports the existence of God, and information that opposes the existence of God. The fact that there is extreamly small amount of both makes discussions of Gods existence really silly in my opinion.

By far the most common reason people believe in certain religion is because their parents told that its real, which I find silly as well.

Sea_Food : It's interesting that you quote Descartes about this, since his other phrase "I am, I exist" became part of the starting point in his work, Meditations, to prove that God exists.

play4fun : Descartes was a smart man but he wasn't right about everything. I don't agree with hes argument on that. It is just version of ontological argument witch has been criticized by many other  philosophers

Honestly I don't think it's possible to give physical evidence of the existence of god.  I think you have to use metaphysical evidence to try to prove anything.  I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with the pocket watch theory so I'll explain it and you guys can poke holes as you see fit.  Let's say you're walking through the woods and you hear a strange ticking sound.  When you find the source it's a small pocket watch.  Now it's safe to assume that the pocket watch didn't just sprout from the ground right?  Clearly this complex system of gears must have been created by someone.  So by that logic something as complex as a human, with a musculature, nervous and skeletal system must also have been created by some higher power.  By the way I'm an atheist I'm just very into metaphysical thinking so I figured I'd give my two cents.

you cannot prove God exists or doesnt exist with science. he transcends matter. He is pure spirit(until he became man). just as theology cannot explain some scientifical points, science cannot explain some spiritual points. they must go hand in hand though. how do you explain abstract ideas like love and compassion with science? how does man have a sense of right and wrong. why do we even have an idea of right and wrong. how come man can rationalize and create new things, while animals cant. so i state, prove god doesnt exist?

geeogree : science didnt make the universe Whe ddnt come from monkies if we did Where did the monkey come from

I can't prove or disprove God but I just want to say that it is impossible that God is omnipotent since he can't even prove his own existence.

Well I didn't read too many of the more recent posts, but I tried to inform myself of what has been said so far.  

Anyways, I've seen mention quite a few times of the 'likeliness' of The Big Bang or the sheer possibility that this planet would be able to sustain life. I, for one,  believe that the universe in infinitely expanding just because I personally can't fathom an end (or a "the end" sign, as someone pointed out a while ago). But anyways, back to the whole "randomness" theory of life. It might seem to us that it should be nearly impossible for just this one planet to magically have the ability to sustain life, but that doesn't necessarily entail a creator or that it was anyone/anything's intention for this planet to have life. Obviously this isn't a very good hard-core argument, but I simply wish to point out that we don't really know about any 'absolute' conditions for life. I suppose it also goes along with proving god exists (i.e, someone's bound to say I don't have proof of other life), but there could also be life forms somewhere in the universe that don't need water or air; They could have their own planet that they might believe to be completely random, etc. 

So, yeah. Just wanted to say that our random planet isn't absolutely random, as far as we know. I don't really remember if I wanted to counter or agree with anything else said to this point, so I'll leave it at that for now.  

The debate about the existence of God is rather old - philosophically and scientifically it was all but finished two centuries ago. Hence why you don't see any of the more prominent figures publishing essays on the topic (no, Richard Dawkins is not a prominent figure he is just a jerk). There has been however a rather exciting socio-historical effort to identify the real Jesus, also known as "Yeshua." Stanford has an extremely interesting set of lectures which you can download for free from iTunes:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/historical-jesus/id384233911

Yeshua was not the only person claiming to be the messiah. He was one of numerous figures who gathered a cult following and descended on the countryside. The Bible as we know it today is fairly far from the actual truth of his teachings. If you go to the bookstore to pick up the Bible you are in reality purchasing a manuscript which has been transcribed and restructured by various church institutions and literally thousands of different scholars (and translations). The traditional tales of the origins of the different books are also fallacious creations of said institutions to strengthen the resolve of its members. For example, the Book of John was not written by a single member of the original cult in exile, yet rather a community of people whom remains mostly anonymous. These fabrications were created during times of struggle for Christianity, like the Black Plague which dared people to question "why would God allow such an abomination to exist?"

The original writings, the use of phrases like "the Lamb of God," and even the story of the Final Supper were created long after Yeshua's death. These stories and teachings were perpetuated by the cult that followed Yeshua and further along as it endured to become a major religion. The Crucifixion is by in large one of the larger fabrications: to be crucified was a horribly humiliating death and, if it actually happened, none of Yeshua's follows would dare to have written about it. It's contemporary use is bound to Christianity's spiritual ideals of undergoing pain as a test and a sign of God's existence.

skye565 : I agree with most of what you said. Most people probably don't realize there were quite a few messiahs (or people claiming to be the messiah anyways) at that time. One thing many of them had in common was they were militaristic leaders which I see sort of as fulfilling the prophecies. Even Jesus in the Bible tells his followers to buy swords. It is no coincidence that a Jewish rebellion against the Romans was happening at the same time.

EDIT: I apologize for the formatting. There seems to be nothing I can do about it. I've tried everything. In Microsoft Word the document looks just fine. It's the site.

I hope this
isn’t too terribly off topic but I was going to post this in the other “is
there a God?” thread but then found that I can’t post twice in a row even if the
two posts are weeks apart. So I may as well put it here. Somebody in that other
thread posted a list of fallacies they commonly perceive believers to be making
so I made a little glossary of my own, of just some of the common examples of
fallacies from *atheists* and the irreligious, to keep the issue from getting
lopsided. None of it, of course, proves God (swt) is real but at the same time
it does highlight the flaws in a lot of the attempts to prove the opposite.

Appeal to
motive (acting as though allegedly having a certain motive for believing a
thing somehow makes that belief inaccurate): “A good argument against religion
is that it (according to my unsupported blanket statements) is caused by fear
and lack of critical thinking.”

Appeal to
novelty (assuming that something is less likely to be true because it’s old):
“Why would you want to follow a book that’s thousands of years old?”

That is also
a perfect example of the fallacy of chronological snobbery (which means exactly
what it sounds like). The genetic fallacy too (acting like the origin of a
notion is proof of its invalidity).

Appeal to
probability (“if it *can* happen, therefore it *will*): “If God existed then he
could’ve done yada yada, but He didn’t, so He isn’t real.”

Appeal to
ridicule (replacing argumentation with mere mockery): “I suppose you believe in
flying spaghetti monsters too?”

Argument to
the example (arguing against one example when you’re supposed to be attacking
the whole): “I hate all religion and find them all equally absurd. Now listen
to me spend about 95% of this book/website/article/lecture ranting about things
which really only apply to Christianity.”

Begging the
question (assuming the argument’s premises is true in order to *show* that it’s
true, i.e. basing an argument on its own assumption): “Science is superior to
religion because it’s open to revision whereas religion is stuck with the
dogmas it started with.” This already assumes that no religion ever got it right
the first time, in which case revision would obviously be a *bad* thing.

Circular
reasoning (basically just redundantly stating your own point like it proves
itself): “Because there is no scientific evidence for a thing like God which
isn’t scientifically testable to begin with, therefore there is no reason to
believe in God.”

Double bind
(no matter what the other person says, they’re necessarily wrong in your eyes
because you’ve left them no way to win to begin with): “If only one or two
extraordinary events happens, it’s a coincidence. If a whole lot of them happen
to one person, it’s a clustering illusion.” 

Equivocation
fallacy (redefining a word so as to make a point): “If God didn’t exist then
there wouldn’t be suffering, since no good god would allow it to happen—never
mind that nowhere else in all of history but in this one argument has anyone
given such a weirdly passivistic and simplistic definition to ‘good’ as the ‘exceptionless
disallowing of all suffering, period’.”

Figure of
speech fallacy (interpreting literally something which was only an idiom): If I
started listing examples of these yesterday I wouldn’t finish by next week. To
summarize, the general idea is that anything written less than some four
hundred odd years ago can be read as non-literalistically as modern writings whereas
anything older must have been what those stupid ancient people actually
thought. See “chronological snobbery” above. 

Gambler’s
fallacy (the idea that separate events can influence each others’ likelihoods):
“There are so many religions out there: what are the odds that any one of them
is correct?”

Loaded question
(asking someone a question with a premise which is untrue or which they don’t already
agree with): “How can you believe in things that there’s no evidence for?”

Moving the
goalposts (shifting your ground at your convenience in order to maintain your
starting position): It’s the same every time. They say, “Religion comes from a
time when we didn’t yet know how the world worked, but now science has
discovered that and rendered religion obsolete and redundant.” You try to get
them to put their money where their mouth is and tell us what science has
explained and not just described—what makes the world observable with its laws
in the first place. Once you’ve cleared away their attempts to dodge the question
(see previous post) and gotten them to actually address it they always say,
“Why does there have to be an explanation?” Evidently when they said two
minutes ago that science has “explained” anything they were under the
impression that the definition of “explain” is “to look the other way”. 

Another
example would be, “If a miracle could ever be proven, that would not mean that miracles
are real but only that we need to redefine the laws we have now.”

Non-sequitur
(two unrelated things are treated like they follow from each other): “According
to a very obsure definition of atheism that you’ll never hear anyone but us
atheists ever use, the word ‘atheism’ just means ‘the lack of belief in deity’
and not specifically the disbelief, so people who have never heard of God are
still technically atheists. Therefore despite the fact that every negative
claim is also a positive we atheists don’t share a burden of proof with theists
after all, since these hypothetical ignoramuses I spoke of aren’t making any
claims even though we, the people in this debate, who are here and talking to
you right now, *are* making claims.” 

The
etymological fallacy (acting like etymology automatically shows the true,
modern meaning of a word) shows up a lot in these slippery arguments too.
(“A-theism. Without gods.”)

Retrospective
determinism (“Just because it happened to be this way, that means it could
never have been any other way from the start; it *did* happen so it *must* have
happened”): “The odds were not against the universe being the way it is.
Instead the odds of it being this way are exactly 100%: otherwise we wouldn’t
have been able to make the observation in the first place.” You could apply
this nonsense to anything. I could take a can of red paint to your house
tonight, write out HAHAHAHA I BET YOU NEVER THOUGHT I HAD THE GUTS TO DO THIS,
SO COME AND GET ME IF YOU DARE! and then play dumb when you call my bluff and
show up the next morning flanked by cops. And then I say that obviously the red
paint must have spontaneously generated there or fallen from an unknown source and
landed due to gravity and momentum alone in those exact formations. You tell me
that the odds of that are a trillion to one, and I say, “Uh, no, the odds are
*exactly* one *out* of one, because it’s *there*, isn’t it?” 

Special
pleading (making an exception for yourself as a pure double standard):
“Religion tends to be statistically clustered by region. Never mind that
nonreligion so often is too.”

 

Straw man
(attacking either an imaginary position or a real argument the other person still
has not actually made): “Religion is egotistically anthropocentric because it
assumes that we’re the most important things in creation and it’s all here for
us.” I have yet to see one single solitary religion ever claim this anywhere in
any of its scriptures. In fact my own goes so far as to deny it outright (“the
creation of the heavens and the earth is certainly greater than the creation of
humans, though most humans don’t know it” –Koran 40:57 I believe)

Wrong
direction (getting cause and effect backwards): “The world is the way that it
is because of its laws—which are what? Descriptions of the way the world is.”

All right, enough
is enough. You get the picture.

Anyway, as
for proof, outside of mathematics it doesn’t exist. I’ve already laid out my
favorite argument on the matter elsewhere (a sort of variation on the argument
from natural law—or maybe nowadays it would more likely be called fine tuning) and
it should suffice. To close: try not to think of anything in this world in
terms of proof. Think in terms of what’s rational.