Climacus does not attempt to persuade readers to accept another system of thought different from their own, especially one reflecting his beliefs. Its goals are for the reader to move away from dependence on the opinions of others and to create space for their own opinion. By examining the truth, one can direct one's own opinions toward faith. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay When it comes to the Christian faith, Climacus does so by introducing the possibility of offense, through the absurdity of the paradox. Climacus believes that it is not possible to prove the existence of God. He wants readers to use their own opinions to form beliefs about faith, but suggests that in proving the existence of God, it is imperative to remember that all proof requires an act of faith. In justifying the existence of God, we assume exactly what we intend to prove. If God does indeed exist, then proving His existence might be considered madness, but if He does not exist, it would be impossible to prove His existence. If we talk about proving the existence of God in the context of proving the unknown (God) that exists, then we are speaking incorrectly because there is already a presupposition that he exists. If one already believes otherwise, there will be no search for proof. The thought of its existence as false would prove contradictory to our own beliefs about its unrealizable existence. It is a mistake to ask the question when trying to prove the existence of God. To ask a question means to assume the truth of the point of contention, and in this case, the point of contention being that God exists. When we attempt to prove the existence of God, this is only made possible because we already hold this presupposition. In effect, only a conception is developed, rather than the desired proof of existence. Climacus argues that it is difficult to prove that something exists, because the demonstration can turn into something different; “a final expanded development of what one concludes after having presupposed that the object of investigation exists.” Therefore, it avoids reasoning towards existence, alternatively, it reasons from existence itself. He offers the analogy of a court of law to emphasize this point. The course of law does not prove that a criminal exists; instead, they prove that the accused whose existence is revealed is a criminal. He adds how difficult it is to prove existence by discussing the larger claim that doubt will persist even if God's existence can be proven. An analogy with Cartesian dolls can emphasize this point. If you let go of the doll, it stands on its head. As soon as we let go, we let go. The same can be applied to proof. If the proof is established, then the existence does not emerge. However, if the proof is dropped, the existence remains and a brief "jump" moment occurs. This act of faith can be applied to a person's attempts to prove the existence of God. The lack of objective knowledge of its existence causes one to remain stagnant in the existing evidence of non-belief. If no evidence can be discovered, then one may abandon one's efforts to prove and believe. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Climacus believes that it is impossible to prove the existence of God. He gives the example of the existence of Napoleon. The existence of Napoleon can be demonstrated if we assume that Napoleon's works are his works, and if there already exists a hypothesis.