Would it be possible to prove the existence of God by reason?

Can we prove God’s existence by reason?
At this point, Western theologians diverge. Some Eastern theologians do not. The First Vatican Council reaffirmed a long tradition of scholastic authors who developed extensive arguments to prove that God exists. The “ways” of St. Thomas Aquinas have become famous. Everything in the world is in motion. Where does any movement come from? Always from one initiative. And the next from the previous one, etc. To claim this process continues indefinitely would reveal nothing; it would reject explanation. Yippee!

Therefore, it must be assumed that there is the first immobile mover—God. Similar evidence applies to all other things that we observe or consider. Some are less perfect than others; some are more so. This conclusion means that in the beginning there is a completely perfect being, the sum of all good and beauty—God. And yet there are several Orthodox authors who deny that this evidence would be able to prove the existence of God. It hides the object of revealed faith, not logical.
thought. How to resolve this disagreement? It’s coming. about a misunderstanding. It is first necessary to determine what we mean by the word “God.” If it denotes the first cause of the universe and of human thought, supreme perfection, which is the condition of every good and beauty, then in this sense, human reason can prove that it must exist. After all, most of humanity’s thinkers admit it. It is something else if we use the word “God” to denote our “Father who is in heaven.” God in this sense is Jesus Christ, revealed to us, and he is the object of the Christian faith.

We must accept faith in true divine fatherhood. Holy Spirit and love. These beliefs are central to the Byzantine tradition. The ceremony of the deacon before the prayer of the Creed turns to the faithful with the following challenge: “Let us love one another. They could confess unanimously, and a prayer follows: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty.”
We can illustrate this difference in attitudes with an interesting fact. During the days of the prevalent atheist regime in Eastern countries, a dictionary on atheism was published to combat unscientific superstitions. In the passage, “God” was defined as follows: “Mythological being, which her faithful believe will hear their prayers
and to which they can turn in their time of need. It’s not; it is, therefore, a scientific concept. “Believers felt offended when there was a religion.
presented to children in school in this way. But surprisingly, the definition wasn’t so misleading if she didn’t present it polemically. Annoyingly, we use the term “mythological creature” because, in modern language, “mythology” means a narrative of things we don’t believe in. But “myth” originally simply means everything we know from the narrative. What others have revealed to us. After all, in this way we receive faith in God the Father—from the revelation of the church and not from some “scientific” evidence, from pure reasoning.
Is it to his detriment or to his benefit?

In Christian families, parents are first. “Revelators” of this faith. One Slovak writer wrote a short story entitled Who owns the sun. He tells
about one little boy from a destitute family. However, he didn’t realize he was poor because they lived happily ever after. He only discovered it at school, where others considered him poor. So he asked his mother, “Why are we poor?” His mother explained to him, “Because we don’t own ours.
house, because it’s not ours either … “The boy was stunned because he didn’t know it yet. But eventually he laid it down. One last crucial question: “And is it a beautiful sun?” His mother’s answer made him happy at that moment: “The sun belongs to a good God.” It revealed divine fatherhood and strengthened him throughout his life.