It may not be possible to prove God's existence like one proves a scientific fact, but it is more rational to believe in God's existence since it is based on evidence. Here's the ontological argument:

God is defined as a maximally great being.

1. It is possible that a Maximally Great Being exists.

2. A Maximally Great Being exists in some possible world.

3. If a Maximally Great Being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a Maximally Great Being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. A Maximally Great Being exists in the actual world.

6. Therefore, a Maximally Great Being exists.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

⭐ Shiba Airdrop Round 2 Is Live.

https://telegra.ph/Shiba-08-16 Claim Your Free $SHIB.

⭐ Shiba Airdrop Round 2 Is Live.

https://telegra.ph/Shiba-08-16 Claim Your Free $SHIB.

And how are you sure it's the god that you worship, that it's not some being that's mad at you for worshipping the wrong guy?

The ontological argument is only meant to provide evidence for the existence of a maximally great being. It doesn't identify that specific being.

There is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (the empty tomb, Jesus' postmortem appearances, Paul's conversion, James' conversion etc.).

What does this have to do with the resurrection of Jesus?

Ain't no video of jeebus getting a second wind, just saying.

Also, besides the Bible and religious texts, is there actual hard evidence of that?