To What Extent Can There Be Proof Of God

Core questions remain through these assumptive arguments like “Why is Creation reaching towards life?” I feel it is a disservice towards the maturing of humanity to believe in meaningless processes creating consciousness if, in fact, humankind is living, feeling, and perceiving as well as pondering meaning.

The theory of common ancestry also undoubtedly starts in the middle of the story. So what if one starts at the beginning of the story? Our minds lack the ability to comprehend how something came from nothing. Our minds also do not do a great job at understanding eternity or the universe having no beginning. Either way, I propose that some sort of faith is required to start somewhere. Whether we choose the Big Bang, God, or both, faith

Quantum physics explains seemingly supernatural phenomena. If God exists he must be found in science, since all things are a part of him or came from him. Thus the supernatural must actually have natural explanations. The question is if faith can bring about things unseen. Is God testable? What would be counted testable? I propose that if God were testable, it would not warrant belief, since if God is real, he seems to be supernatural, and with this comes skepticism.

Can miracles be a proof of God? Miracles can be defined as things that seem to defy the laws of nature or physics. For example walking through a wall may be counted as a miracle, but quantum physics says that there is an incredibly small chance that walking through a wall is actually possible if you run into it enough times. So, maybe even miracles can be explained away through the probabilities of quantum physics. It may be agreed, however, that if a person walked through a wall multiple times that this person may have some supernatural ability or connection with a higher

I weigh the one miracle against she other, and according to the superiority which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates, then, and only then, can he pretend to commend my belief or opinion (Sober, 2013).” In essence, Hume is using the Surprise Principle. He is saying that it would be more likely that the person claiming to see a dead man come to life by a miracle has been deceived than the fact that a dead man was actually raised to life. Therefore, he would choose the less surprising of the two, and believe that the man claiming to see the miracle is deceived. Since it is more likely that Hume himself be deceived over the chance that a dead man be miraculously raised to life, I assume, according to his principle that he would choose not to believe the miracle even if he saw