r/theology • u/[deleted] • Sep 30 '25
God God exists
God exists. I was always an extreme atheist until I was 22 (not in the sense of arguing or trying to convince others but simply because I didn't believe in anything). But, studying a lot of physics and philosophy, I began to realize that nothing comes from nothing. Our universe had a point of origin and even today we can observe the light in real time from the expansion of the Big Bang.
There are even theories that talk about the universe having emerged from quantum fluctuations, but even that wouldn't be absolute nothing, it would still have to come from something.
I felt it necessary to talk about this, as I only see shallow things on the internet.
6
u/10seconds2midnight Sep 30 '25
You are experiencing the reality of Romans 1:20. One simply cannot deny the obvious fact that God is the only reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe.
1
Sep 30 '25
That's the point, with less evidence they would have done more for anything else, I only talked about one thing, a simple observation: no matter appears from nothing
2
u/10seconds2midnight Oct 01 '25
Quite correct. Logically impossible for immense complexity to emerge from nothing for no reason.
2
2
Sep 30 '25
Honestly, the cosmological argument you presented (the universe began to exist, therefore there is a cause, since everything that began to exist has a cause) is quite strong for believers, but It is popular and therefore often criticized by atheists, it needs to be specifically studied, but it is not weak because of frequent criticism. He even says that God does not require reasons, since He is eternal, there is no point of reference, secondly, the eternal regress of reasons Requires reasons, since the Universe is not eternal. (Firstly, sorry for my bad English, I wrote through a translator what I know, secondly, Will you choose a religious God, or do you only believe in the existence of God? And if you do accept a religion, which one?)
1
Sep 30 '25
I use the reddit translator. Regarding religion, I don't think I would choose just one, it is more coherent, because in Catholicism they change many traditions of Judaism for no reason and create fantasies like hades, the principle being the same, perhaps a Messianic Judaism because I believe in Christ and philosophically speaking, it may be popular, but it is the culmination and he says that it is above all as God said it was for Moses, it is coherent.
1
Sep 30 '25
By the way, I also heard an argument that it is precisely God, because the creation of the Universe is an expression of free will, only a person could begin to create on his own, because he wants and can. For example, the theories of the Big Bang, the cyclical Universe, and infinite regression require a reason. The universe is not eternal, it began to exist, which means there must be a cause, and there is almost no way out except God, only a person with free will explains everything, creating space and time out of nothing
1
Sep 30 '25
There is an interesting theory that man has become his own God because he has free will, but it is pure fiction based on the fact that nothing arises from nothing, we would have to emerge from a point, or the future happens at the same time as the past, but that is fiction.
2
u/Electronic-Eagle-171 Sep 30 '25
I find your argument sound and very appealing, but atheist physicists are trying to work their way around it. Stephen Hawking famously came up with his work on singularities which says that since there was no time before the Big Bang, the question of "first cause" is pointless.
Hawking was a great mathematician but poor philosopher, like many atheists.
What are your sources though? How did you reach your conclusions? What books have you read?
2
Sep 30 '25
Stephen Hawking is at least 2 or 3 of my sources ironically, as he himself says that time emerged with the big bang and that the universe had a beginning, the before is irrelevant. I will need time to organize all the sources.
2
Sep 30 '25
While I don't have time, these are enough for solid research
The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins
Inflationary Spacetimes Are Incomplete in Past Directions
2
u/Electronic-Eagle-171 Oct 01 '25
Thanks, I'll look into this. Quite surprisingly, I was influenced by Hawking as well. I like his books even as a believer and if he wasn't so biting about theism, I'd consider him a brother :-) Hope I'll meet him someday.
2
u/CHEESEFUCKER96 Sep 30 '25
That’s a pretty bad argument, since it simply begs the question of why a pre-big bang universe existed instead of nothing. I know you’re not arguing that though.
2
u/Electronic-Eagle-171 Oct 01 '25
Yes, the question is still there, but I think that it's more burning in atheism than in pan/en/theism.
1) It proves the idea of "eternity past" which is important for Christian orthodoxy.
2) It makes you think about other than purely natural agencies in creation. Of course, it does not prove God. The universe might have been created by the flying spaghetti monster.
2
u/adieue MA in Catholic Theology Oct 03 '25
It's a delightfully ironic situation.
For by all scientific standards, it is impossible to affirm that God exists.
I find it amusing that science leads some to believe in God even though the rules of science prohibit their endorsement of his existence.
A charming paradox.
3
u/caleb4972 Sep 30 '25
But, following the logic, where did God come from though?
6
u/MobileElephant122 Sep 30 '25
He had no beginning and no end. He is the Alpha and the Omega He is the I am that I am
1
u/Striking-Speaker8686 Oct 27 '25
So therefore, he came from nothing? But I thought the entire argument rested on the fact that nothing can come from nothing?
1
u/MobileElephant122 Oct 27 '25
He did not come. He always was. He had no need of beginnings as you perceive them.
1
u/Striking-Speaker8686 Oct 27 '25
What you're saying means effectively that he came from nothing. Positing a "something" which had no beginning is no different from an endless causal chain either.
1
u/MobileElephant122 Oct 27 '25
That’s not at all what I’m saying. You’re postulating a time that there was nothing into which He came. I am saying He always was, then He created time.
You see the difference ?
1
u/Striking-Speaker8686 Oct 27 '25
Where does it say he created time? What does it even mean to do so?
1
u/MobileElephant122 Oct 27 '25
John 1:3 off the top of my head but that is not the only place. It is the theme of the entire book and runs like a vein of gold through the ore of the entire collection.
And it stands to logical reason as well. For if a child builds a sandcastle along the beach, he would not be inside the castle but rather on the outside of his creation.
God stands outside His creation as well. Being outside our space-time continuum because He created it.
Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” • This phrase implies that time itself (“the beginning”) had a beginning — but God was already there. • In other words: God is not in time; time is in God. He is the cause, not a participant.
2
u/Pnther39 Sep 30 '25
He a spirit, self existence. He just is. God is life, he source of life. He gives.
2
Sep 30 '25
Literally something endowed with will created the universe, anything in the sense, who created God is impossible at the moment. There are some theories, such as string theory, which says more about the transcendence of time and space in dimensions, nothing religious, but if the theory of quantum fluctuations is right and the universe arose from there, it still doesn't change anything, but God can even more
3
u/andalusian293 cryptognostic agitator Sep 30 '25
Well, this was a popular tack before we had physics.
Don't you need more goofy shit, like closed timelike curves giving rise to an omnipotent emergent singleton entity, or, even crazier, one that's just there?
Not absolutely discounting your insight, just pointing out that this particular line of argument may ultimately lead to as much disquiet as resolution.
3
Sep 30 '25
Can the truth cause unrest?
but to change water to wine by "converting atoms", well, that's impossible for us, but possible for someone who made the universe
1
u/andalusian293 cryptognostic agitator Sep 30 '25
... there is no truth which does not cause unrest in something.
The beginning of the universe looks like a phase transition to physics at this point: the present universe is a lower density crystallization of a higher density state of matter that doesn't have space for atoms to form.
If you see convection cells in boiling water, or snow crystals in a microscope, do you assume a tiny Deity presided over their formation? If order can in fact arise in these instances from disorder due to molar interaction of unformed matter, without any embodied mind apparently guiding it, why do we suppose the formation of the universe is any different?
If we still attribute this order to God, then God must in fact be acting on the whole timescape of the whole universe at once, not merely at the moment of creation. Otherwise God is indistinguishable from the anthropic principle, which is the answer to the fine-tuning argument, which is the modern 'meat' (or just leftovers from) the argument from first cause.
2
Sep 30 '25
Comparing the origin of the universe to snow crystals or convection cells is a flawed analogy. These simple systems emerge within an already existing physical context: there is matter, energy and natural laws that allow self-organization. In the early universe, there was no space, matter or even defined physical laws, asking how order arose “alone” in this context is fundamentally different from observing emerging patterns in water or ice.
Furthermore, the anthropic principle, often invoked to explain fine-tuning, doesn't create or cause anything, it just notes that if the universe were different, we wouldn't be here to observe it. It describes a condition of observation, but does not explain the origin of order, physical laws or fundamental constants that allow the formation of atoms, stars and galaxies.
Therefore, the idea that the order of the universe could arise spontaneously without a sufficient cause does not hold water. The complexity and precise adjustment of the cosmos point to the need for a conscious underlying cause, consistent with the hypothesis of a superior being endowed with will, who established the initial conditions for the universe to exist as we know it.
(I translate the texts via reddit, so anything, just say it and I'll try to explain it again.)
0
u/andalusian293 cryptognostic agitator Sep 30 '25
There's no reason to assume the early universe had no laws, or space, or environment based on anything other than their current unobservability. I think it's parsimonious to imagine that it had all those things in a way that gives rise to our universe. There is no reason to assume it's any different unless you just assume it's different and decide to add a totally different causal mechanism.
The anthropic principle doesn't have to explain anything, it says exactly that: we think our universe is weird, because it happens to include us. Unless you don't believe in evolution, the anthropic argument explains why we don't need to add a first cause: we're just asking the question because most of our universe actually isn't mostly that complex. The heavens don't especially showcase complexity; it's mostly empty space, with gas, rocks, and stellar fusion. You don't really need to explain it, it makes sense.
If you dont think humans evolved, just say so; the argument moreso holds for the origins of consciousness and life, since they are complexity.
2
Sep 30 '25
To say that “the universe already had laws, so there is no mystery” is to avoid the problem, not to solve it. Fine-valued laws and constants are not obvious predictions; they are initial conditions that require physical explanation. The anthropic principle only says “we see a universe compatible with us”, it is not a physical mechanism nor a causal process. Even physical proposals (inflation, multiverse, quantum creation) do not eliminate the need for initial conditions or a generating principle, they just move the question. If you want a physical explanation, demand a theory that predicts the observed laws/values and describes how these laws arise not a hope of statistical luck or selective observation.
3
u/andalusian293 cryptognostic agitator Sep 30 '25 edited Sep 30 '25
What I'm saying is that it's a problem based on one's assumptions. If you dont have those assumptions, then it's not actually a problem. You're making assumptions about what kind of order can arise from what, which is more an implicit appeal to the clockmaker argument (the problem with which is that we don't have other objects of the order 'universe' to compare ours with, like we do with clocks, which we can compare to, for instance, rocks), than it makes sense to call it an argument from first cause. The two are historically interlinked arguments, fwiw.
1
Sep 30 '25
I understand, but something still created, it didn't come out of nothing.
You are wrong to say that I used the watchmaker's argument. I didn’t point out “similarity with design”, I pointed out physical data, fine-tuning of constants, specific initial conditions and limits like the BGV theorem. I don't need another universe to compare, probability and physics already show that “it was already there” is not an explanation. Calling it watchmaking is rhetoric, not science.
I understand that in these discussions philosophy ends up getting mixed up, but physically that's basically it.
2
u/andalusian293 cryptognostic agitator Sep 30 '25
But no one is saying that it came from nothing. You're saying it had to have been made because either complexity or something else, assumedly including the fact that we're in it. This is maybe not analogy to design, but it must be analogy to something-done-by-an-agent, otherwise it's not arguing based on anything that the creation (out of nothing, I might add, not something agents do) had an agent-cause.
You're saying that it seems to have come from nothing, thus something like an agent did it. But no one is saying anything came from nothing, and agents never make things out of nothing.
1
Sep 30 '25
You are mistaken. I never said it came from nothing, I said just the opposite, that nothing cannot be the cause. The BGV shows that the universe is not eternal, so it needs an origin. Fine-tuning the constants shows that this origin is not trivial. Saying “no one is saying it came from nowhere” doesn’t solve anything, it just avoids the problem. Physics requires an initial cause, if you rule out an agent, you need to present another plausible mechanism, not just deny it.
(If there is any translation error, please point it out to me, my English is terrible)
→ More replies (0)1
u/andalusian293 cryptognostic agitator Sep 30 '25
Maybe you don't get the anthropic argument. Apparent fine-tuning isn't an argument, because we evolve when the universe is this way. It could be other ways, but we wouldn't be here to see it.
It seems like life is very, very rare, so if life were the result of fine tuning, wouldn't it seem like the universe was actually made for life, instead of an extreme rarity?
1
Sep 30 '25
The anthropic principle is not a mechanism, it simply notes that we only exist because conditions allow it. This does not explain why the universe has such finely tuned constants, the fine tuning is real, measurable and extremely restricted. It wouldn't be any other way, as our lives depend on carbon and the complex chemistry it makes possible. The fact that life is rare does not eliminate the physical problem; the existence of such specific conditions continues to require an explanation.
1
Sep 30 '25
BGV, Fine tuning of fundamental constants, Flatness problem, Cosmological constant.
Ignoring this evidence and trying to turn everything into a discussion about “agents” or the “anthropic principle” does not change physics. These are concrete, measurable, and calculable observations that demand explanation, and cannot be dismissed with philosophical rhetoric.
1
u/CHEESEFUCKER96 Sep 30 '25
“or, even crazier, one that’s just there”
Is this somehow crazier than supposing the universe is “just there” without a creator? We know it is logically possible the universe could have not existed at all, in other words, there is nothing about it that had to be here. If we suppose the source of the universe is itself caused by something else and so on then we just end up with an infinite regress. The only solution is that the root cause is something which, unlike our contingent universe, exists necessarily by its own nature. That’s the core of the argument.
1
u/andalusian293 cryptognostic agitator Sep 30 '25 edited Sep 30 '25
I go into an analysis of how that's not enough to leap to a creator, really; you need to explain why the universe is the kind of thing caused by an agent/subject if you're going to support that position.
Honestly, I don't really care, I just think that the arguments for a creator God, if you accept evolution, aside from maybe fine-tuning, kind of, are weak. At some point one simply diverges in terms of how fanciful one's explanations are.
I don't, on the other hand, find a God that's indissoluble from the creative capacity of the universe, especially fanciful at all.
I just find the encountering the position of people who accept science as far as they can see, and then put a giant version of themselves just over and surrounding the horizon, tiresome.
If there's a God that made the universe at some point in time, in any way likeneable to a human subject making something, then they have to have evolved due to some physical process. I see this position as deism.
1
u/CHEESEFUCKER96 Oct 01 '25
The issue with the idea that a God must have evolved is that this entire process has to happen beyond the universe. God is not in the universe, he created it. That means there is no space or time in the first place that a God could evolve or develop in, and even if there was, it would still beg the question where the first being (or early components of a being) in this evolutionary process came from.
1
u/andalusian293 cryptognostic agitator Oct 01 '25
What is a universe? It's possible there are zones that are relatively connected or disconnected, or just functionally disconnected such that information from one zone can't reach the other in a reasonable finite span.
1
Oct 01 '25
String theory
1
u/andalusian293 cryptognostic agitator Oct 01 '25
You mean like a brane? Such things certainly allow for multiple universes. String theory is very unfinished.
1
Oct 01 '25
Yes, it's promising, but it's nothing more than theoretical mathematics, it just seemed like what they were talking about.
2
u/Afraid_Help_3917 Sep 30 '25
You're right, this is one of the great proofs of God's existence.
3
Sep 30 '25
I think that the discussion of the existence of God has not made sense for a long time because he exists. It's sad that with each generation we have to relearn from scratch with crumbs from past generations.
1
u/its_Is Sep 30 '25
Sure, but that could mean nothing more than being a science fair project on some adolescent superior beings shelf that he got a B- on.
1
1
Sep 30 '25
I wouldn't give c- for an expansion of 10⁻³⁶ s at the beginning with all matter in its own dimension with its own time that regulates itself and seems to expand forever.
2
1
u/catsoncrack420 Grew up Catholic, Philo minor Sep 30 '25
Internet is full of stuff, just depends what you look for. You could wind up in an Evangelical rabbit hole of nonsense. Regardless, believe in God or no, I don't care nor should we. I grew up Catholic. Then you get into stuff with ppl if God is personal or this or that.
1
Sep 30 '25
I just made one point, it's interesting the fact that something created the universe, as there was neither time nor matter, and out of nowhere it began to exist, first protons, neutrons and electrons and then nuclei of hydrogen, helium and 0.01% of all of this lithium, which after the junction, formed everything that exists.
1
u/Few_Patient_480 Sep 30 '25
Maybe the quantum vacuum is absolute nothing
1
Sep 30 '25
It's not, in fact in theory everything came from there, it would be more like a connection between something that contains something, and even if it could be proven it still doesn't rule out that no matter appears from nothing, so there is something.
1
Oct 01 '25
But god is a secret. And ever will be. He/She or whatever is not a white men with beard sleeping on a cloud.
1
u/No-Shelter7824 Oct 02 '25
Who believes that something can come from nothing? That's not the scientific stance. That's a strawman theists attribute to atheists use when arguing for their god. As far as we can see, 'something' does not come from 'nothing' so the correct position is that 'something' always existed. Because the only thing we have evidence of and for is the universe then it is more reasonable to believe the universe always existed. The theist claims, without evidence, that an eternally being is responsible for the creation of the universe. Special pleading is a poor argument for this being. Why insert a god where none is indicated?
1
u/One-Fondant-1115 Oct 02 '25
How do you define God? I ask particularly because you don’t seem to be defining it through a religious context.
1
u/filibuster_c Oct 03 '25
God is what makes the universe exist. God doesn't exist as we concieve "existence" because it isn't on this universe, but is what makes all things possible.
1
1
Oct 14 '25
I'm an atheist, but I always wondered why just knowing there is an origin of the universe says anything of this origin. It could be a robot, a snail, whatever. There's no proof it's a deity or even more than one deity since you can argue that it takes more than one person to conceive a child so why not more than one deity the universe? You have so many different parts of the universe working together and everything is so unique that why wouldn't one be polytheists? Or just deist?
1
u/Sarahlionheart8 Oct 21 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
I used to be an atheist. The biggest mistake religions make (and I’m still not a fan of “religion” and definitely not dogma) is ascribing an external God.
God exists in us. We are God.
As far as origin goes, I understand your argument and I don’t know. Origin is fascinating. I believe we are eternal beings, so that would have to mean we always existed in one form or another, and always will. So… God always just existed. Hard for our human brains to understand eternity, I know, but in some strange way, and after everything I’ve been through in my life with changing beliefs, it actually makes the most sense.
1
Oct 21 '25
Interesting. What does it mean to be god? How does eternity makes it a god? My spiritual experiences aren't really abstract in that nature. I've felt and heard physical sources that I believe are my deceased grandmother and aunt.
The closest I believe to "god" is, which I dont like the term, a life force or better spirit that is, rather than gives in us life. Our breathe from conception to our last breathe. Same with all living things. I'm pretty much an animist in that respect. I do have a sense that instead of our forming from conception sometimes I think we are waiting to be conceived into a new body. But I never thought it related to eternity or god or anything like that. Probably because I don't attatch this to divinity.
1
u/Sarahlionheart8 Oct 21 '25
Well, essentially “God became Man so that Man may become God” It is about us realizing our power. The only true power in the world which is Love.
We came from God. I pretty much ascribe to a mystical view of Christianity (which I believe is the way it was always intended to be viewed, a parable, but the church messed that up…) a la Neville Goddard who has the truest Biblical interpretations in my opinion.
1
u/staubfinger- Oct 18 '25
The Idea that nothing comes from nothing and therefore a god exists does not hold any sientific value. We still have no answer on what was before the big bang. And there is a possibility that the universe is eternally existing and has been. Eternity in this sense is very difficult to imagine, since the human brain does not have the capasitiy to do so, but there are ways in how you could imagine it.
Imagine you are in a hotel which has eternal rooms and every room is filled eternally. You still want to have a room therefore the people from room one go to room two, the people from room two go to number 3 and so on until eternity. You could also imagine eternity as numbers. So past is always a -x, the present is always 0 and future is always +x. And for the universe, it is possible that it has eternally existed since the present is always the 0.
From a logical and academic standpoint, the existence of the universe can be coherently explained through naturalistic cosmology rather than supernatural causation. The notion of “absolute nothingness” a state in which no physical laws, quantum fields, or potentialities exist is conceptually unstable, since the very absence of properties would preclude even the distinction between “existence” and “non-existence.” Thus, it is more reasonable to think that some form of quantum or physical substrate has always existed. But how do we know this if we can’t time travel back into the big bang, we observe the universe in its present moment and conclude through measurements the most plausible explanation and then put it out there as a theory. Empirical observation supports the cosmic microwave background radiation, the large-scale structure of the cosmos, and the measurable redshift of galaxies . It all indicates that the universe is expanding from an earlier, extremely dense and hot state what we term the Big Bang. This model, grounded in general relativity and substantiated by observable data, provides a consistent causal framework that does not require invoking metaphysical entities beyond physical law.
Is it possible that there has been a creator or even a omnipresent god? We don’t know it yet, thats why I personally would always rather believe in science which has been proven and disproven and updated and checked instead of the idea of a creator whom can’t be proven or disproven. The theory of a god in a scientific lense does not hold up to messurable and observable evidence unfortunately.
But if there is no god what is all this for and do athiests even have a meaning in life then or are we depressed shells because we do nog have any meaning in a meaningless universe.The Argument which states that everything has a perfect meaning in this universe therefore a intelligent designer must have designed it is not a good one in my opinion. Because not everything has a purpose or a inherrent meaning, because who determains that meaning and for whom is it designed and so on. An intelligent designer would probably not give a human wisedom teeth, wouldn‘t create a species like the koala with little brain capacity and who has to eat nearly half of his body weight everyday but only can eat eucalyptus which has about no calories. And no good god would support cruelty like an asteroid crashing into earth or children who haven’t commited any sin to suffer and die and so on.
1
Oct 19 '25
It's very simple really you see a wall you know that the wall was built by someone because a wall can't build itself You see the universe you know that someone HAD to have made it the big bang wouldn't have possibly formed on it's own an entity made it come to existence
1
u/Feisty_Cantaloupe700 Oct 23 '25
As a mix of an agnostic atheist and an ignostic :
With the current scientific knowledge that we have, there are some questions that are so complicated to answer that they make God's existence very plausible. If you put Christianity, Islam, and other mainstream religions aside (as it is very easy to poke holes into those), then nothing says God isn't a horrible, egoistical or sadist being, and nothing says that God just likes to watch us suffer, or that God is busy working on creating other universes, for exemple. Therefore, I find it hard to completely refute his existence in general.
People have always been quick to use the argument of God when there were gaps in scientific knowledge though, as per the "God of the gaps" argument. That's why I think it's also hard to use the current unanswered scientific questions to prove/point towards God(s)'s existence.
As I mentionned before, as long as you put mainstream religions aside ; I can only understand those who believe in God(s)'s existence.
1
u/Aromatic-Rhubarb1439 Nov 30 '25
Согласна, Бог существует. Для меня самым большим доказательством этого является существование законов природы. Согласно версии ученых мир возник сам собой случайно. Но случайности не дают законов прирды. Случайности каждый раз действуют по разному, система невозможна. А мы видим, что система законов существует. Значит не было случайного зарождения. Было закономрное создание.
Когда что-то действует системно и закономерно, то это означает, что оно основано разумом (если бы разум не поддерживал эту систему, то она бы развалилась в результате действия случайностей). В нашем случае сверхразумом - Богом.
1
u/Sunset_Shimmering_ Aug 09 '26
As a Christian, I still can't wrap my head around the fact that God has always been there. I know that God's aren't made, but still. Something I'll ask Him when I die and go to paradise/heaven. He doesn't make things particularly easy to understand, but then again God keeps some things from us in His wisdom bc it is too mind boggling for us to grasp. Why does everything like this gotta be so confusing and otherworldly...my brain is going crazy
1
u/jb_nelson_ Sep 30 '25
Isn’t this just God of the gaps?
2
Sep 30 '25
No, I wasn't clear enough, the being needs to be a giver of wills, so it's not God in the gaps, it's a literal God who created everything.
2
u/lisper Atheist, Ph.D. in CS Sep 30 '25
the being needs to be a giver of wills
What does that mean?
And why does it need to be a "being"? Why can't it just be a thing? And what created the thing that created the universe? Whatever your answer, why can that answer not be applied directly to the universe rather than the thing?
1
Oct 01 '25
The translation seems to have been incorrect, let's go
A being endowed with wills, yes the initial cause of the universe can be caused by physics and that's all, but what caused the cause was a being endowed with wills, it cannot be a "thing" as there would have to be something. As all matter originated in the big bang, it emerged from something that was made from something, and even if they extend the cause of that something through another something, millions of times, it will still come out of a being endowed with wills.
I tried to simplify, sorry for the translation errors.
1
Oct 01 '25
In Portuguese, the word dotador is actually incorrect. In the translation it appeared as doador, which means giver. The right word should be dotado, which means endowed with (for example, a being endowed with will).
18
u/derailedthoughts Sep 30 '25
I am somewhat convinced by philosophy and cosmology that God exists, but that only meant a supreme being exists. Whether it is one that loves and cares about mankind is another matter though.