I have read time and again that specially with atheists, they are willing to state that they cannot prove God does not exist, but neither can theists prove God exists.
On the other hand, the Catholic Church declares that God can be known to exist by reason.
I agree with the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
But how does the Catholic Church go about proving from reason that God exists?
In particular to atheists?
On my part, I think in order to prove something to exist in objective reality, all parties engaged in the issue must first agree on how to prove something to exist in objective reality; otherwise, there is no way a proof of something to exist in objective reality is going to be accepted by everyone: because there will be always someone with an objection against the proof, at least that it is not yet sufficient, therefore not adequate.
For the end of coming to concur on what is proof and how it is obtained, let us everyone theist and atheist first consider all the kinds of things we humans seek to prove to exist in objective reality.
And what kinds of things do humans seek to prove to exist in objective reality?
First, things we humans have access to with our external senses and out internal senses.
For example, to prove to folks so backward that they have never seen a television set, all we have to do is to bring a tv set to them and operate it in front of them for them to enjoy the tv set, viewing it.
Another example, about internal events in our mind and body, like how the perception of food can stimulate the secretion of saliva in our mouth: just get a person to go without food for say just a whole day, then set before him food and his mouth will be wet with saliva from his salivary glands.
What about people who insist that we cannot be sure of our existence, that it is all delusion or illusion or hallucination or we are living in a cyberspace matrix.
There is what I will call an infallible test to bring them to their senses that it is a certainty that we everyone alive exists.
The test consists in daring him to bang his head harder and harder against a concrete wall or hit his nose harder and harder with a hammer, and it will be sooner than later that he will come to certainty that he exists: so he must stop the test unless he wants to come to non-existence, which for a living thing means death.
Do you notice, dear readers here, that the way to prove existence with things which are accessible to our senses is to experience their presence?
That is direct proof of existence of something in objective reality.
But to experience something we must be conscious.
So, conscious experience is the way and means to prove to ourselves even atheists that something exists, but that works only with things accessible to our conscious experience.
Even our each one’s individual experience of consciousness is the way to prove for each one to himself and by himself and for himself that he is conscious, and he is a conscious living being.
What about things which cannot be directly accessed by our senses or by way of our conscious experience of their presence?
Such an object is God.
Here is where we all theists and atheists in particular with atheists must come to concurrence on what it is to prove and how to prove or disprove the existence of God.
We theists and atheists want to work together to first arrive at agreement on what I call the indispensable principles of thinking: by which we prove or disprove something to exist, which something is not within our access by way of our conscious experience of it.
What are these indispensable principles of thinking?