The Standard Arguments for God's existence

[Age]

There are 5 popular arguments for the existence of God as listed below, I don't agree they stand up in a convincing way since they all lack evidence that God was required for any of them.

My argument however does provide evidence.

You can download my Divine Etymology Argument, which provides actual evidence on the link (PDF, MOBI, EPUB)
https://www.androcies.com/DivineEtymology.php

Cosmological Argument:

Premise 1: Everything that exists has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause (a First Cause or Uncaused Cause), which is often identified as God.

So, WHY, EXACTLY, is 'this FIRST CAUSE' NOT so-called 'evidence' of God, to 'you', "attofishpi"?

By the way, some existing 'thing' having A cause IN NO WAY implies/infers that 'that thing' is NOT eternal.

And, if absolutely ANY one would like to KNOW HOW and WHY and/or WANTS the IRREFUTABLE PROOF and Fact FOR 'this', then just let me know.

Teleological Argument (Argument from Design):

Premise 1: The universe exhibits order, purpose, and complexity.
Premise 2: Such order and complexity imply a purposeful design.
Conclusion: Therefore, there must be an intelligent designer, which is often identified as God.

you say that these arguments do stand up in a convincing way since they all lack evidence that God was required for any of them. BUT, so far, the first premise in just these first two IS the so-called 'evidence' that God was required.

But THEN AGAIN 'you' do NOT KNOW, FOR SURE, who and what God, EXACTLY, IS, YET, correct?

Ontological Argument:

Premise 1: God is defined as the most perfect being conceivable.
Premise 2: Existence is a perfection.
Conclusion: Therefore, God must exist because the concept of a perfect being includes existence.

AGAIN, the first premise IS 'evidence'.

Moral Argument:

Premise 1: Objective moral values and duties exist.
Premise 2: The best explanation for the existence of these values is the existence of God.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists as the foundation of objective morality.

Fine-Tuning Argument:

Premise 1: The fundamental constants and conditions of the universe are finely tuned to permit life.
Premise 2: The odds of this fine-tuning occurring by chance are extremely low.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe's fine-tuning suggests a purposeful creator, often identified as God.

ONCE MORE, the 'evidence' IS IN the premises here.

BUT WHY 'you', human beings, LOOK FOR and/or USE 'evidence' FOR NEVER ceases to AMAZE.

'Evidence' is NEVER, ACTUAL, 'proof' FOR ANY 'thing'.

Once 'you' HAVE 'proof', then 'sound AND valid arguments' can be made, and OBVIOUSLY there is NO one who could REFUTE a 'sound AND valid argument'.

Arguments, like above, are just a 'WASTE of time', as some would say. 'They' are, OBVIOUSLY, NO use for ANY 'thing', other than NOT what to USE.

[Age]

For those who don't download material from unknown sources, can you summarize your argument similarly to the standard 5 summaries you provided?

Yes I admit when I looked at them all I wondered whether I could in fact summarize my own similarly. Once I've ironed my socks maybe I'll have a crack at it.

Until 'then' what about you just provide the ACTUAL 'evidence', which you CLAIM exists.

[Age]

There are 5 popular arguments for the existence of God as listed below, I don't agree they stand up in a convincing way since they all lack evidence that God was required for any of them.

My argument however does provide evidence.

You can download my Divine Etymology Argument, which provides actual evidence on the link (PDF, MOBI, EPUB)
https://www.androcies.com/DivineEtymology.php

Cosmological Argument:

Premise 1: Everything that exists has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause (a First Cause or Uncaused Cause), which is often identified as God.

Teleological Argument (Argument from Design):

Premise 1: The universe exhibits order, purpose, and complexity.
Premise 2: Such order and complexity imply a purposeful design.
Conclusion: Therefore, there must be an intelligent designer, which is often identified as God.

Ontological Argument:

Premise 1: God is defined as the most perfect being conceivable.
Premise 2: Existence is a perfection.
Conclusion: Therefore, God must exist because the concept of a perfect being includes existence.

Moral Argument:

Premise 1: Objective moral values and duties exist.
Premise 2: The best explanation for the existence of these values is the existence of God.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists as the foundation of objective morality.

Fine-Tuning Argument:

Premise 1: The fundamental constants and conditions of the universe are finely tuned to permit life.
Premise 2: The odds of this fine-tuning occurring by chance are extremely low.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe's fine-tuning suggests a purposeful creator, often identified as God.

There's two kinds of thinkers.

Those who go from the simple to the complex (Big Bang to -> ???).
Those go from the complex to the simple ( ??? -> Big Bang)

BUT there is NO ACTUAL 'complex'. There JUST IS, which IS VERY SIMPLE, REALLY.

That's all there is to the God-belief.

Just reverse the arrow of time and plot a course to self-creation. (Self)Made in God's image.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_God

Or as biologists prefer to call it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

Which ALL LEADS TO what JUST IS. or IS JUST.

The 'big bang' is NOT JUST, in relation to some ALLEGED 'start/beginning'. NEITHER, is ANY 'thing' outside/beyond/apart from also JUST, in relation to ANY CLAIMED 'beginning'.

The ACTUAL 'beginning' IS JUST, and which, OBVIOUSLY, can NOT be REFUTED.

'This beginning', however, I have YET to SEE EXPRESSED and SHARED here.

Also, what has been STOPPING and PREVENTING the ACTUAL Truth from being SEEN and RECOGNIZED, is the BELIEF and/or DISBELIEF IN God, and, as of YET, in the days when this is being written, STILL and UNCONSCIOUSLY KNOWN 'thing', TO 'you', human beings.

[Age]

For those who don't download material from unknown sources, can you summarize your argument similarly to the standard 5 summaries you provided?

How's this?

Divine Etymology Argument

P1: Certain key words within the English language exhibit statistically improbable linguistic patterns and connections.

P2: Naturalistic explanations, such as random chance or linguistic evolution, struggle to account for the observed linguistic anomalies.

C: The Divine Etymology argument posits that these linguistic anomalies are more reasonably explained by the influence of a deliberate, transcendent intelligence—referred to as a divine force or creator.

'This' is just ANOTHER so-called 'standard argument', in which the 'evidence' for God exists within the premise, for some, but NOT for ALL.

[Age]

For those who don't download material from unknown sources, can you summarize your argument similarly to the standard 5 summaries you provided?

How's this?

Divine Etymology Argument

P1: Certain key words within the English language exhibit statistically improbable linguistic patterns and connections.

P2: Naturalistic explanations, such as random chance or linguistic evolution, struggle to account for the observed linguistic anomalies.

C: The Divine Etymology argument posits that these linguistic anomalies are more reasonably explained by the influence of a deliberate, transcendent intelligence—referred to as a divine force or creator.

The standard gambit to defeating statistical improbabilities is to disregard Occam's razor and pluralize the contexts to infinity.

This way even the most improbable thing is still a statistical certainty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

If 'you', human beings, evolved out of or from 'monkeys', then the fact IS that a 'monkey' hitting a type writer, for long enough, will produce 'works', has ALREADY HAPPENED.

[Age]

But there is no infinity required in the argument, in fact the etymological roots of most of the key words only go back a few hundred years at the most, and these roots are still under scrutiny. Their convolution since then has had them arrive in their present form and as P2 basically states, it is unlikely that random chance or the natural evolution of their linguistics can account for their present structure.

The infinity is required to dismantle the argument.

When you have infinite number of universes evolving in parallel the anthropic principle guarantees precisely the observation that you are observing.

When you have infinite time/entropy/space there's no such thing as "unlikely". You are just the luckiest fish in the ocean of universes to observe precisely this universe. The most improbable universe.

And if you internalize this infinite luck of yours - you get precisely what theists call "meeting God".

Considering the IRREFUTABLE Facts that there is ONLY One Universe, and that 'It' IS INFINITE, then COMING-TO-KNOW thy Self, or so-called 'meeting God', was BOUND TO HAPPEN, 'eventually' if one likes.

KNOWING WHO and WHAT 'I' AM, EXACTLY, was THEREFORE ALWAYS going to HAPPEN, and OCCUR.

That 'you', human beings, here, in the days when this is being written, are EXPERIENCING 'this' HAPPENING, and OCCURRING, here, now, AND HERE-NOW, as AGAIN is JUST, and was ALWAYS GOING-TO-HAPPEN.

[Age]

But there is no infinity required in the argument, in fact the etymological roots of most of the key words only go back a few hundred years at the most, and these roots are still under scrutiny. Their convolution since then has had them arrive in their present form and as P2 basically states, it is unlikely that random chance or the natural evolution of their linguistics can account for their present structure.

The infinity is required to dismantle the argument.

When you have infinite number of universes evolving in parallel the anthropic principle guarantees precisely the observation that you are observing.

When you have infinite time/entropy/space there's no such thing as "unlikely". You are just the luckiest fish in the ocean of universes to observe precisely this universe. The most improbable universe.

And if you internalize this infinite luck of yours - you get precisely what theists call "meeting God".

Well it's a good job I don't believe much regarding the concept of 'infinite', it's a garbage void in any equation, and certainly infinite X (including universes) is erroneous.

And here we have the POWER OF BELIEF, and 'its' DESTRUCTIVE and PREVENTATIVE WAYS, in FULL SIGHT.

[Age]

Well it's a good job I don't believe much regarding the concept of 'infinite', it's a garbage void in any equation, and certainly infinite X (including universes) is erroneous.

Scientists/instrumentalists don't care. Infinities work.

Are they true? Let the philosophers figure that one out.

ALREADY 'figured out', and ALREADY KNOWN and UNDERSTOOD.

[attofishpi]

..

..

Dear "moderators"

Could we perhaps recalibrate our philosophical compass and steer the discussions back toward the shores of reason and meaningful dialogue? After all, even in the vast sea of ideas, there should be some method to the madness.

..

Dear Wise and Illustrious Emperor of Philosophical Realms,

I trust this missive finds you in the pinnacle of sagacity. As an avid contributor to our esteemed forum, I have observed a few celestial disturbances in the cosmic dance of intellectual discourse. It seems some wayward comets of confusion have disrupted the otherwise harmonious orbits of insightful discussions.

Might I humbly suggest a cosmic recalibration, guided by the stellar principles of reason and coherence? After all, in this vast universe of ideas, a touch of celestial order is surely beneficial.

With respect
atto

PS: I'm talking about the issue of "Age", not "Skepdick" or that idiot "attofishpi"

[Skepdick]

there should be some method to the madness.

The madness is the method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_engineering

[Walker]

there should be some method to the madness.

The madness is the method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_engineering

aka Crazy Wisdom and dancing drunk.