The 17 Best Arguments for God, Ranked - Apologetics Tier List

[@bitcores]

"I had a bill for $1,437 coming up and someone dropped a cheque for $1,500 on my doorstep" Has this ever occurred when they didn't tell ANYONE about the upcoming bill?

[@goldenalt3166]

Maybe, but it wasn't memorable.

[@maxp3659]

Yeah. Presuppers are absolutely infuriating.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Literally the worst

[@GivenFailure]

My rankings which turned out to be much longer than I expected: Kalam Cosmological Argument: I don't find the premises intuitively true, which you must to find the argument compelling. Plus the conclusion is pretty weak. C tier for me Pascals Wager: Arguments from utility cannot be convincing about reality, so I'm not sure what to do with it. F tier, not even an argument Ontological argument: While it's easy to come up with counter examples, finding the actual fallacy is difficult to articulate or conceptualize. I find it intuitively compelling, but the conclusions can be weird. A tier Moral argument: Morals do not appear objective to me, i don't even understand what that means. You can't seem to get an ought from an is, so I don't get it. It seems like wishful moral arrogance, but that can feel good. C tier Argument from consequence: Has no truth value, goodness or utility isn't truth. F tier, not an argument Fine tuning: I find it pretty weird, it kind of just assumes that things are fine tuned without much motivation. However if you do assume that universal constants have some kind of reason it's decently compelling. B tier Watch Maker: It's totally circular, if you assume everything is created then everything is created. Like how do we distinguish between created and not created in this scenario? Why is complexity indicative of design? All supposed examples of irreducible complexity suck. D tier Argument from consciousness: Literally just God of the gaps. Also all evidence seems to points to naturalistic explanations for the mind. On the note of "greater properties." That's deeply rediculous, it's called emmergence, they are just falling into a composition fallacy. D teir Argument from Personal Experience: There are other explanations of those experiences but there's at least something that happened, which is at least attempting to reflect an account of reality rather than some abstract argument. B tier Argument from Miracles: I've never heard a convincing miracle claim, but if it were true i guess maybe that'd bring you somewhere but not even necessarily to God. D tier The Resurrection: Also a miracle claim. The historical argument requires special pleading. D tier Prophecy: They're all not even real prophesy as in written before, clear criteria that is specific, and Independently attested without referencing the prophecy itself. D tier Unique Religion: All religions have unique properties and Christianity isn't even that unique, it's syncretic and just marries elements of Judaism and Hellenism. Also aseticism is common in religion, and if it was really a marker I guess Jainism is true or something. F tier Argument from Contingency: My intuition is that contingency isn't "real" in that sense. I tend to be more necessitatian in my thinking. But that's just my intuition, without that there are some assumptions to jump like that infinite regresses aren't possible and it doesn't really get you to God as much as some necessary entity. C tier. God Shaped Hole: People being drawn to personification doesn't really point to a personal God. Moreover the variety of beliefs that seem very specifically geolocated isn't doing their argument any favors. D tier Presuppositionalist: Just say you hate parsimony and go. It's not really an argument as much as a pretty bad defense. F tier Teleological argument: I don't really get it, but teleology from intuition seems powerful to religious people. But it combines well with other apologetics like fine tuning, so it gets synergy points from me. C tier

[@ReasontoDoubt]

That is a very thorough list! Just one comment on the Kalam, I don't find the premises intuitively true. In fact, my intuition (such as it is) is that the universe is more likely eternal. But it's at least hypothetically falsifiable which goes a long way with me, it's straightforward, and easy to understand. All good points.

[@kidslovesatan34]

A thorough list and a fun read, well done.

[@MikeMitchellishere]

I very much enjoyed this episode. As you began, I thought it would be very helpful if you guys collaborated on a reference book that formally discusses these arguments. I thought you were generous with a few of these. They all get eye-rolls from me. If I had a nickel ...

[@ReasontoDoubt]

We're just generous fellows I guess lol

[@goldenalt3166]

27:13 "Answers in Genecide" also works.

[@hurrikanehavok7313]

As soon as I heard you use the puddle argument I think I’ve heard enough.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Not a fan of puddles?

[@ziploc2000]

It is a killer for people who think the Universe was created for humans to live in.

[@JerryPenna]

I only care about the original OG’s opinion: Otangelo Grasso! 😅

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Well that's easy. "But muh Shroud"

[@PZMyersBiology]

You were both way too generous to include the opinions of gullible people in your criteria. Those were all F tier.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

For better or (more likely) for worse, the ability of an argument to persuade the gullible is a point in its favor if you're ranking how effective the argument is

[@kidslovesatan34]

Yeah, that's a good point.​@@ReasontoDoubt

[@christophernodvik1057]

The argument from reason the argument from beauty

[@ReasontoDoubt]

Both D tier, but saved by the bottom by presup

[@kidslovesatan34]

Reason and beauty confirm Ganesha? The Greek and Roman Pantheon?

[@brianw.5230]

Pascal's Wager is awesome. You're wagering your life on atheism.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

I'm pretty sure it's right, and I'd have to be convinced it's wrong to do anything differently, so 🤷‍♂️

[@brianw.5230]

​@@ReasontoDoubt I'm an ex-atheist myself. Just ask God if He is real. Be patient. You will know. :)

[@ReasontoDoubt]

If you say so. He knows where I am whenever he wants to introduce himself

[@brianw.5230]

​@ReasontoDoubt also, in "Pensees", Pascal already addressed these objections. He wrote 200 pages why Christianity is the one true religion. He also recommended living the faith if one wasn't convinced by his evidence.

[@brianw.5230]

@@ReasontoDoubt you gotta be open. And ask. :)

[@Arcadius8]

Hey, when it comes to miracles, have you seen a tape of pastor Duane Miller? During speech which his voice changed from screeching to normal. His laryngeal recurrent nerve was severed after viral infection prior to his lecture.

[@ReasontoDoubt]

It's been a while, but I remember listening to the tape. It wasn't particularly impressive from what I recall, and I don't think I was able to find any medical documentation (like a case study in a peer reviewed journal) to corroborate the story

[@kidslovesatan34]

I want to know what makes that a miracle as opposed to a purely natural phenomenon.

[@Arcadius8]

@@ReasontoDoubt Yeah, if there were some imaging done, surely he should have published before and after.

[@goldenalt3166]

​@@Arcadius8And what's the point that God was trying to make with this miracle?

[@Arcadius8]

@@goldenalt3166 To not doubt Him, and bring more people closer to Him. He chooses whom, when and where, not by mere coincidence.

[@ziploc2000]

Ontological makes absolutely no sense. You can't think things into existence, big, small or maximally great. I'm thinking of 10' tall man so he exists. Oh yeah, well I'm thinkignof a 20' tall man. etc. Just utter nonsense.

[@goldenalt3166]

You can't do that with actually tall things only infinitely tall things. :)