I’d like to get back to the topic. There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not we should accept what the scriptures clearly state about the existence of God. Personally, I haven’t found the argument very helpful. Either the biblical claims are correct and worth taking at face value or they are not.
Some confessions of the Christian faith include an assertion that we know God (and, by default, believe He exists) by two means:
First, “by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, which is before our eyes as a most elegant book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to contemplate the invisible things of God, namely, His eternal power and divinity.”
Secondly, “by His holy and divine Word”, i.e. the Bible.
There appears to be no consensus in this thread that we should accept what scripture tells us about God’s existence or His nature, character, and actions so that leaves us with the first of the two means, i.e. the “book” of nature. To my way of thinking, this book virtually screams its message into our cognition. The more we learn about the complexities of life, the less we can comprehend how life began, let alone how it is maintained. In his visions, Ezekiel saw “wheels within wheels”. Well, our bodies contain a gazillion of components, interdependent cells, etc. each of which is too complex to describe, let alone replicate.
Man has attempted to “create” life in a test tube and failed miserably. I don’t believe he ever will even if God dropped a detailed instruction manual at his feet. For me, the fact that I exist physically is enough absolute proof that God exists. Add in the existence of my brain and my ability to experience emotions such as love and faithfulness and much more.
Quad erat demonstrandum?