How is Pascal's own religious faith evident in the last passage of the Wager?

Blaise Pascal is the mind behind the Pensées. To better understand the Wager Argument, it is best to learn the life of its writer. Even at a young age, great intelligence and talent had been evident in Pascal. With further nurturing, his intelligence and talent were more developed. As he grew, he began his “mad love affair” with the world, living in worldly pleasures. He lived a life in the fast lane with a fast crowd of freethinkers. They enjoyed gambling, drinking, dueling, and womanizing. But, he suddenly had a change of life after a mystical religious experience. He devoted his life and energy to God. It was during these times that he wrote the Pensées. And, there was the turning point in Pascal's life.

Pascal's religious faith is evident in the last passage of the Wager. The purpose for which the Wager Argument was written is for religious conversion, very much like what Pascal experienced. He wants the Wager Argument to be the starting point of the skeptics and agnostics toward their path to religious conversion. Like what he experienced, he wishes people who thrive on worldly pleasures to have a change of heart and mind, and believe in God. He desires these people to see that believing in God is to their advantage and happiness. Like his religious faith, Pascal does not expect them to have faith in God in an instant. The mere act of will to believe in God is not equivalent with faith in God. Faith is a process. It is not something that happens in a snap. Yes, Pascal had a mystical religious experience that altered his direction in life. But, his faith in God did not happen in a one shot deal. He entered the Jansenist monastery, gave up his pleasure-loving ways, embraced the belief in God, and led a life in accordance with Him. As a man of the world who turned into a convinced Christian, he was aware of the necessity for certain moral dispositions before one can achieve conversion. And, he addressed the Wager Argument in that way.

The Wager Argument is very much different from the Cosmological Argument. In the Cosmological Argument, St. Thomas Aquinas tries to prove God's existence in five ways. In the Wager Argument, Blaise Pascal does not try to prove God's existence. Instead, he encourages people to believe and have faith in God. He hopes that after considering the Wager Argument, skeptics and agnostics will be motivated to be in a position where the dawning of faith can take place. And when that finally happens, the Wager can be put aside for it has served its purpose.

What, according to Pascal, does one gain in this life by taking the side of God?

Gambling. It does not merely pertain to a game of bet. We deal with it everyday of our lives. Yes, we gamble when we play a game of poker. Yet, we also gamble when we cross the road. We either win or lose; we either live or die. Life's greatest game of bet is the decision human beings need to make: to believe in God or not to believe in God. And, that is according to Blaise Pascal.

Blaise Pascal wrote the Pensées or Thoughts. In this document, he presents to us the Wager Argument. As a great mathematician, he makes his point through the use of probability, showing us the pros and cons of believing. We are now given the idea that the argument is based on the practical consequences or benefits that one can get from believing in God. The succeeding statements show how the pragmatic argument had been presented. If God really exist and we believe in Him, then we win; but if we don't, we lose. If God does not really exist and we believe in Him, then we lose; but if we don't, we win.

Now, this discussion will focus on this statement: if your bet is on God and He exists, you win; and if your bet is still on God and He does not exist, you lose, only on the surface. Again, by taking the side of God, and when it turns out He does really exist, you win. This means that you gain infinite happiness. Maybe this idea of infinite happiness means heaven, paradise. You gain everything, unending life of unending happiness; as Pascal puts it, “an infinity of infinitely happy life.” On the other hand, if you take the side of God but He does not really exist, you lose; but only on the surface. Despite the losing end, Pascal shows us that believing in God is a win-win situation. Give this a thought. Even if you lose the bet, you would not experience the pain and bitterness of losing because you and anyone else won't be there to experience anything at all. Nothing will be left; no reward, no pain, no God, no you, no anything. In fact, it seems like you've won because you've lived a well lived life. By believing in God, you experience conversion. You live a religious life patterned from God's teachings. You enjoy the joy and pleasure that you experienced for living a good life with a sense of purpose.

In gambling, we take risks. Life is a gamble. We take risks and sacrifices in life. In life's greatest game of bet, it is obvious that our only chance to win is by betting on God. So, why bet and take risk on something uncertain in exchange for something certain, a sure win?

Granting that all things are contingent, hence perishable (thus, there could have been a time in the past when nothing was in existence as Aquinas argued in the Third Way), is it not also possible that even if all things are contingent, their finite life spans could overlap so that there is no point in time when all of them ceased to exist? Think for instance the life span of human beings. Does this line of reasoning refute the argument for the existence of a necessary being?

The Five Ways relates to us a third way from possibility and necessity. One idea raised in this way is that things are subject to generation and corruption. This means that a thing has a beginning, and consequently, it has an end. This idea is similar to the life span of human beings. A human being is born as a baby, grows, and eventually, dies. Thus, all things are contingent, perishable.

I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas when he said that there came a time in the past when nothing existed. I also agree with him when he contradicted the argument that if there came a time in the past that nothing was in existence, then nothing must be in existence right now because things are existing today, we are existing. Nevertheless, I will agree with the idea of finite things overlapping because we experience this cycle. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, human beings and everything else are born and eventually, perish. Then, another series of things come into existence, and eventually die. And, it goes on and on, like a cycle. However, if we come to think of it, something must have caused the existence of these finite things. Specially since they are finite, it is impossible to say that these finite things just existed without a cause. And, Aquinas refers to God as this cause. Thus, it is more sensible to say that there came a time in the past that nothing existed, and God caused the existence of these finite things. From there, the cycle of the finite life spans sprang.

Nevertheless, this line of reasoning does not refute the argument for the existence of a necessary being. Actually, this reasoning supplements the idea of God whose existence is necessary. This is justified by the explanation presented a while ago. Again, God is a being whose existence is necessary. He is inevitable in order to make sense of our empirical experience of the existence of things in the world. We have to admit the existence of some being- God, having of itself its own necessity and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity.

Why do we need to bring in an uncaused cause to explain the existence of things? Why could there not simply be an infinite series of things mutually keeping one another in existence, thus, eliminating the idea of a first cause?

“My existence is caused by my parents.” In the Quinquae Viae, St. Thomas Aquinas offers us the second way from the nature of efficient cause. This way claims that any thing in existence is caused by something. And, Aquinas further suggests that this something is God. He is the first and primary cause.

In the question posted above, the uncaused cause here pertains to God, of course. So, we can rephrase the question in simpler terms. Why do we need to bring the idea of God to explain the existence of things? Aquinas, himself, answered this question in The Five Ways, and I agree with him. “There is no case known (neither is it, indeed possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself. Nothing is responsible for its own existence. Something has brought something into existence, into what it is.” Now, let us make sense on all of these. Say, an object caused its own existence; then, that is tantamount to saying that the object existed before itself. How bizarre! In the concept of logic, this idea is definitely nonsense. Before I even existed, I'm already existing. How is that possible? Before any thing can exist, something must cause that thing to exist. This idea is similar to Aquinas' and Newton's idea of motion. In the absence of force, an object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will remain in motion. But, when force is present, a thing at rest may come into motion, and a thing in motion may come at rest. In this concept, force is the cause why things are in motion or at rest. Thus, it is absolutely beyond possibility that an object will simply exist without a cause.

Now, we can apply the same idea in answering the concept that an infinite series of things mutually keeps one another in existence. We are faced here with the idea of infinity. However, how can this infinite series of things lead to its infinity without existing first? Thus, we go back to the argument that something must have caused this infinite series of things to come into existence before it can infinitely exist by mutually keeping one another. We are then led to the idea of a first cause.

Let me end this discussion with an illustration. In a game of bowling, when the bowling ball is thrown by a person, the ball rolls and eventually hits the ten pins, causing a series of movements. The bowling ball rolled because it was thrown by the person. It then hits the pins because it rolled. The pins topple because they were hit by the bowling ball. In these series of movements, the force exerted by the person is the primary cause. The other movements would not have happened without the first cause. In other words, there would be no intermediate cause if there is no first cause.

If everything that exists must have a cause, as Aquinas contends, what caused God? Is the question what or who made God a valid question? Why or why not? Defend your answer.

The Five Ways of St. Thomas includes the second way from the nature of efficient cause. Any thing comes into being because it is caused by something else. Nothing is responsible for its own existence. Something has brought something into existence, into what it is. And, God is the first and primary cause. Several arguments have been raised in relation to the second way. One of these arguments is that if everything which exists must have a cause, what or who caused God.

The argument presented in the preceding paragraph is the main focus of this whole discussion. If we give the argument a deep thought, the question of what or who made God is a valid question. One reason we can identify for the validity of the question is simply because it makes sense. As continuously mentioned in my former entries, it is in the human nature to be curious. Aside from the question of God's existence, we cannot also help but ask what or who made God. Even believers who have a very strong faith in God, when faced with such question, can't help but ponder on it. However, upon deeper analysis of the question, I came up with a sensible realization. If the question of what or who caused God was answered, wouldn't the answer given be also questioned as to what or who caused the answer? For instance, it has been proven that X made God; since it is in the human nature to be curious, we will later on begin to ask what or who made X. And, the question on the similar subject will go on and on; it will be never-ending.

Generations have passed but God's existence remains a question until today. Maybe, in addition to the question, we can also ask what or who caused God. The world is filled with so much questions. I guess it would not hurt if we add to these pool of questions. I guess it would not hurt if we add another question to the list of unanswerable questions.

The First Way regarding motion presupposes that “the natural state of things” is rest. Sir Isaac Newton, however, asserts, “motion was as natural a state as rest.” This means that things already at rest tend to continue at rest, and things already in a state of motion tend to continue also in motion. Does this view, if correct, invalidate in a way the argument of Aquinas regarding motion? Why does motion require an explanation any more than rest?

Things are either in motion or at rest. In The Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas, he presents the first way which is an argument from motion. For him, motion includes not only the simple movement of a things from one place to another. It also includes any form of movement or change from one state of a thing to another. In other words, a thing in motion may come at rest, and a thing at rest may come into motion. On the other hand, Sir Isaac Newton, in one of his laws of motion, claims that “motion was as natural a state as rest.” This means that things already at rest tend to continue at rest, and things already in a state of motion tend to continue also in motion. This law of motion is often called the law of inertia.

Newton's law of inertia does not invalidate Aquinas' argument from motion. Actually, it even serves as a supplement to Aquinas' argument from motion. Newton's law of inertia tells us that a thing at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force, and a thing in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted on by an unbalanced force. We have to notice here now the concept of the absence of force. In the absence of force, an object in motion will remain in motion, and an object at rest will remain at rest. However, when force is present, an object in motion may eventually be at rest, and an object at rest may eventually be in motion. Thus, Newton's and Aquinas' ideas of motion are connected in one way or another.

As we notice, motion requires more explanation than rest. This observation makes sense. Imagine yourself staring at a rubik's cube. Boring, right? Of course, you'd like to get that rubik's cube and solve it. A thing at rest does not have thrill; there is nothing much that we can get from it. For beings like us whose nature is to be curious, more ideas and information can be gathered from things in motion. We won't get anything out of something stationary simply because nothing happens in it than from something moving because movements entail more.

What is the common starting point of all arguments in each of the Five Ways?

Many of the great thinkers have tried to put an end to the perpetual question of God's existence. One of them is St. Thomas Aquinas. In his Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas presents the Quinquae Viae, or what we popularly know as The Five Ways. Here, we are not just presented with one but five philosophical explanations attempting to prove God's existence. Nevertheless, any theory would not have been formed without a foundation, without a basis. As observed and understood, St. Thomas' Five Ways were based from his observations and experiences of the world and the nature of things.

The first way is the argument from motion. This way tells us that God initiates or activates motion in the world. He is responsible for all the changes in things; but He, Himself, remains unchanged. The idea is taken from the nature of things that some things in the world are in motion; other things are at rest. If something is in motion, it is only because it is put into motion by something else.

The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. This way tells us that God is the first and primary cause. He is ultimately responsible for the existence of all the other intermediary causes that in turn are responsible for the various effects that we see in the world. Again, the idea is taken from the nature of things that any thing comes into being because it is caused by something else. Nothing is responsible for its own existence. Something has brought something into existence, into what it is.

The third way is from possibility and necessity. This way tells us that God is a being whose existence is necessary. He cannot not exist. And, He is inevitable in order to make sense of our empirical experience of the existence of things in the world. The idea is also taken from the natue of things that things are subject to generation and corruption. Whatever comes into being or begins to exist also goes out of being, into non-existence. We have to admit the existence of some being, having of itself its own necessity and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity.

The fourth way is from the gradation to be found in things. This way tells us that God has all the perfection found in things. He is at the very top of the scale of existence and yet served as its very ground. Again, this idea is taken from the nature of things that there are things that are more or less beautiful than others. We describe and distinguish things as more or lesser than others because we have an idea of the maximum which we use as a basis for comparing things. In the hierarchy of beings, there must be one being that is supreme.

Lastly, the fifth way is from the governance of the world. This way tells us that God is supreme in knowledge and intelligence. He directs all things in the cosmos to their proper ends. This idea is also taken from the nature of things that things in the universe are governed. Things which lack knowledge are not capable of directional activity. Whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it will be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence.

10 Books about God's Existence

1. Contemporary Philosophy and Religious Thought: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Malcolm L. Diamond ( CO BL 51.D48 1974 )

The question of the existence and nature of God which is also the central issue of Western religious thought is the focus of this book. However, the author do not assume the importance of this issue. Rather, he explores the reasons that belief in God has been regarded as both important and compelling by Christians and Jews, and the reasons that sceptics have challenged this belief. The text combines a “problems” and a “thinkers” approach. It deals with such problems as the proofs for God's existence, verification, faith, miracles, and religious experience. In considering different appoaches to these problems, Diamond presented a number of thinkers who have played a major role in shaping 20th century religious thought.

2. The Presence of God edited by Pierre Benoit, O.P., et.al. ( CO BT 124.P73 1969 )

The Presence of God is divided into two parts. The first part is composed of two articles outlining the divine dialectic of God's presence and absence in the course of biblical history, and in the revelation of the Word. Accordingly, the mystery of a God who is both present and absent, who imposes himself on us yet eludes us, has worried man in every phase of his history. The people of the Bible also had to face this problem. On the other hand, the second part of the book is devoted to christology, which is not the focus of our subject. It discusses all that is implied in the incarnation insofar as Christ's being and conscience is concerned.

3. The Problem of God by John Courtney Murray, S.J. ( CO BT 98.M87 1964 )

In an urbane and persuasive tract for our time, the distinguished Catholic theologian combines a comprehensive metaphysics with a sensitivity to contemporary existentialist thought. Father Murray traces the problem of God from its origins in the Old Testament, through its exposition by the Christian Fathers and the definitive statement by Aquinas, to its denial by modern materialism. Since the book examines the growth of doctrine that is now, even more than in the days of Newman, a fundamental issue between Roman Catholic and Protestant, theologians and non-specialist intellectual alike will find the subject of vital interest. As a challenge to the ecumenical dialogue, the question is raised whether, in the course of its development through different phases, the problem of God has come back to its original position.

4. Arguments for the Existence of God by John Hick ( CO BT 102.H53 1971 )

The book concerns the philosophical arguments for the existence of God. God is the unique infinite personal Spirit who has created out of nothing everything other than Himself. He is eternal and uncreated; omnipotent and omniscient. His attitude to human creatures is one of grace and love. This is the being whose existence is sought to be established by the arguments we are to examine. Nevertheless, theistic arguments have their place in the history of Western philosophy. These are the cosmological type of reasoning which goes back to Plato, the teological going back to the Stoics, the ontological proof originated by Anselm, and the family of moral arguments of which Immanuel Kant was the founding father.

5. The God of Philosophers by Anthony Kenny ( CO BT 130.K46 1979 )

This book is a study of some of the attributes traditionally ascribed to God in Western theism. It discusses the concept of God and his attributes in the light reason without accepting as authorittative any claim to revelation. To say that God exists is to say that there is something that has the divine attributes. And if “God exists” is to be true, then the divine attributes must at least themselves be coherent and jointly compatible. The coherence of the notion of God, as possesor of the traditional divine attributes, is a necessary condition for God's existence, although of course, it is not sufficient.

6. Does God Exist: An Answer for Today by Hans Kung ( CO BT 102.K86 1980 )

This text thrusts its reader with the question of God. It draws a line between intellect and will, emotion and reason, and heart and mind. It finds the center of faith in a deep-rooted trust from reality, adressing what is most real. Hans Kung does not state that God exists. He does not offer any convincing proof for it. For him, it is equally and rationally reasonable to believe in God or not to believe in God.

7. Anselm's Discovery: A Re-examination of the Ontological Proof for God's Existence by Charles Hartshorne ( CO BT 102.H36 1956 )

As the title implies, the author tells us that many scholars have overlooked the Ontologocal argument of Anselm. And so, Hartshorne presents to us what the scholars failed to realize. Anselm's Ontological argument suggests that we cannot prove God's inexistence beause we cannot conceive of things that do not exist. Thus, when people say that God does not exist, they are entering a domain of thought that is uncertain. A more certain path lies with reasoning. Nevertheless, without regards to theology or skepticism, God is a possibility.

8. Does God Exist: A Believer and An Atheist Debate by Terry L. Miethe and Anthony G. N. Flew ( CO BT 102.M53 1991 )

In this book, believer Terry Miethe and atheist Anthony Flew debate in the never-ending philosophical question on God's existence. The existence of God has troubled many people in various religious and secular contexts. Each of us has at one time or another questioned God's existence, and was drowned in deep thought trying to make sense of this issue. Some may have even tried to find strong evidence to prove the existence of God. This material examines the popular philosophy surrounding this theory. It also includes discussions by theologians; among them are Sir Alfred Ayer, Richard Swinburne, and Herman Haring.

9. The Existence of God by John Hick ( CO BT 98.B76 1964 )

The Existence of God gives the arguments for and against the existence of God. Each section is devoted to a particular type of argument: ontological, cosmological, design, cosmological, teological, and moral. It also contains selections from a proponent and an opponent of the argument. In addition to the classical arguments, there are chapters dealing with modern critiques based on psychology and logical or linguistic analysis. John Hick gives us a good and clear evaluation of the various arguments about God's existence.

10. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God by J. L. Mackie ( CO BT 102.M32 1992 )

The entire range of the arguments for and against God are here. In this book, a brief explanation of a philosopher's argument is set forth. Then, it is succeeded with an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the philosopher's argument. There is even a section on the most notorious of all arguments against the existence of God which is the existence of evil. This book significantly contributes to the examination of the critical questions of God's existence and inexistence.

Gregory of Nyssa once said, “...finding God consists in endlessly seeking God.” Do you think trying to find God through the arguments or proofs is an essential part in seeking God? Why or why not?

Gregory of Nyssa once said, “...finding God consists in endlessly seeking God.” In other words, our search for God is never-ending, infinite. Our continuous search for God is like a rainbow. We know that it is existing because we can see it. However, we can never find out where is its beginning and end. We cannot find the endpoints of a rainbow. Like God's existence, we know deep within us that He is existing because of our faith. But when we are asked to prove His existence, it is very difficult to do. Despite our faith in Him and His existence, we are still caught in those moments that we cannot help but question ourselves because we cannot prove God. We, who has faith, cannot strongly and wholly prove God's existence. But come to think of it, this is exactly why we have faith because amidst the fact that we have no strong evidence to prove God exists, we continue to believe in Him and His existence.

We must be reminded that God's nature is infinite, his being, power, and wisdom. We cannot grasp Him through our senses. So, if we seek God, we must not limit our search through our physical senses. Instead, we must broaden our scope for finding Him. Our rationality for our beliefs in Him should be greater than ourselves even if it will still never be enough. Similarly, our great thinkers provided us with different arguments and proofs on God's existence. These have been made beyond their physical senses. They used the highest form of intellect possible to argue and prove His existence. They tried to grasp God's infinity in the best and greatest way the human intellect can comprehend.

Nevertheless, arguments and proofs are an essential part in seeking God. These arguments and proofs aid and guide us in seeking God. Again, the search for God is infinite. And, this is why we have faith because we chose to believe in the Infinite. We still chose to believe in God even after understanding the proofs and arguments about His existence. Even if it is impossible and beyond the human intellect to understand God, we tried to move closer to His infinity by learning these arguments and proofs rather than simply believing in Him without proper comprehension and action.

It is said that even the devil knows that God exists. What importance or value does knowing God's existence have in human life?

It is said that even the devil knows that God exists. This statement reminds me of a story in the Bible. Most of us, I'm sure, are familiar with this story. We always hear this during the season of Lent. The story I'm referring to is the story of the temptation of Jesus for forty days in the desert.

The story of the temptation of Jesus in the desert shows us that even the devil knows that God exists. We are all aware of the relationship of God and Jesus. Since the devil knows that God exists, he tempted Jesus. Nevertheless, we can say that without God, there is no evil. Evil is related to the importance and value of knowing God's existence in the human life. Knowing God's existence is realistic and appropriate. We ought to know God, so we can turn away from evil. When we know God, the better we can deal with life. We can face the challenges in life, and manage it well. Unlike when we don't know God, we become hopeless and our thoughts are distorted. When we are thrusted with struggles, we tend to do evil instead of managing it and learning from it. In the end, after the difficulties, we come out as better and stronger individuals. Relating now the story of the temptation of Jesus in the desert, if we consider Jesus as an ordinary person and not as our Savior, He managed not to fall into the trap of evil because He knows God. He lived a life following God's teachings. Thus, if we know God, we live better lives, and we reject evil.

I want to end this entry sharing my thought on how we can know God better. First, we must know more about God. Notice now my use of words; to know God is different from knowing about God. When I say that we must know more about God, I am pertaining to gaining more knowledge through understanding the Bible and God's nature. And when we have more knowledge about God, we must turn this knowledge into practice. It is learning theologically and applying what we learned in life. Thus, the importance and value of knowing God's existence is to live a purposeful and essential human life patterned after God's teachings.

As an adult believer & has time & luxury of higher education, do you think you have the responsibility to be aware of the ground/s of why you believe?

“Why do you believe in God?” What if such question has been asked to you? Will you be able to answer it? How will you answer such question? What reasons will you present as to why you believe in God? As a believer, how will you defend your belief?

As an adult believer, we must be responsible to be aware and to understand the grounds of why we believe. This is true especially for those who have been granted the time and the luxury of higher education. Not knowing the reasons why we believe is being a blind believer. We believe without true understanding. We believe for the sake of believing.

Why then do we need to know the reasons of why we believe? Take this situation. If our friend tells us that he can eat fire, we won't believe him right away. Isn't it? Instead, we would want and ask of him to prove his claim, to show us that he can really eat fire. Similarly, we need to be aware of the grounds of why we believe because we want basis for our belief. It is in the human nature to only believe in something once it is proven. As an adult believer with critical thinking, it is very difficult to believe in God without any basis even if God's existence can never be proven. In other words, in as much as it is in the human nature to only believe in something that is proven, it is in the nature of a true believer to desire for, even a little, a basis for his belief; that despite the truth that God's existence can never be proven, he, as a true believer, has something to hold on to.

Among the millions of believers in this world, not all are given the opportunity of time and luxury of higher education. Since we have been given such opportunity, we must grab and make the most of it. This opportunity gives us the chance know and understand things. Thus, we must be responsible enough to utilize our chances like being aware of the grounds of why we believe. True believers believe with understanding, and when it is beyond understanding, faith works.

Do you think God's existence is all a matter of faith? What about “blind faith?”

Faith. People have different definitions and interpretations for this five-letter word. And most importantly, each person varies in their degree of faith. We all have unique experiences that led us to the present level of our faith. But, we can say that most of us began our faith in a similar manner. We began with a “blind faith.”

Our faith started as a “blind faith.” Our families brought us up, teaching and inculcating in us the traditions of our religion. We learned the basic teachings in our religion. And as we grew and started school, our knowledge about our religion widened. We believed without knowing why we believe. We believed in God because we were taught to do so. Other people never left this state as blind believers. Others moved forward; curiousity dawns on them, and they find answers to their doubts and questions.

As human beings, it is very difficult to believe in something that we do not see. Most of all, it is very difficult to believe in something that we cannot grasp or understand. No matter how hard theologians, philosophers, and other thinkers try to prove God's existence, loopholes and flaws can still be identified in their theories. How can we believe that God exists if it cannot be proven? Thus, it is all a matter of faith. Amidst the loopholes, flaws, and mysteries, we continue to believe in God because of faith. Our faith tells us that God exists.

At the end of the day, it all boils down on us, on our faith, on what we believe. No one can impose on us to believe or not to believe. Our experiences in life build our faith. Faith is believing even when everything seems the opposite. Likewise, believing in God is a matter of faith even when there is not enough proof of His existence.