he tries to say that God's existence should be based on a priori of knowledge, because the existence of God itself can be defined by personal experience ( even though personal experience and experience cannot be tested). he gives example, when an individual sees God, he cannot explain that it is true to others, and there is no way to prove that he really sees God. However, the definition of God can be defined by a priori experience, which means in the human mind, people can think God is exist in their mind. Then he believes the concept of God is generally considered to be the most greatest. In meditation, imagine that something is greatest but does not exist, and another is greatest and exists. The something that exist is certainly more greatest than something is not exist. Therefore, the same greatest thing can not exist only in thought; if it exists only thought, it can be assumed that it is exist in reality, and that Its existence is even more greatest than it is not exist. It can also be assumed that It is both exist in reality and in thought, that will be more greatest. God is greatest, and this has to appear that the exist of …show more content…
If the universe has never had a starting point, it means that the number of events in the history of the universe is infinite. But the number of past events must be limited. Therefore, the series of events in the past can not go back to the endless, the existence of the universe must have a beginning. Scientists have to face the origin of the universe, it will be inexplicable. So the existence of God is inevitable. Even though a supporter of the big bang theory, if he is an atheist, he must at least have to believe that the universe is out of nothing. But it must be unreasonable! Nothing can be made out of nothing. This will have to believe in the presence of God. This argument provides a belief in