Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Mudhammam]

Why are they all so fucking illogical and idiotic? Moreover, why are so many people dumb enough to be "persuaded" by them?

In my opinion, the best arguments I've heard for god's existence where the cosmological argument, the argument from miracles and some variations of pascal's wager. They sound more convincing or at least not so annoying or fallacious as the typical argument of 'the bible says it therefore god exists and I am right!'

1- The cosmological argument is more or less the following:
- Everything that exists needs to have a beginning of it's existence
- There is no know beginning of the universe (before the big bang, what created the big bang?)
- Therefore a god must exist
This argument fails for 3 reasons, at least from my perspective - Firstly, the universe doesn't need to have a beginning, it could have always existed; secondly, just because currently there is no known cause for the big bang that doesn't mean we won't find out just like we have been finding out facts we didn't know of 200 or 300 years ago; and finally, even if the premises were true it doesn't necessarily mean a god exists, it could have more causes, just because we can't explain something it doesn't mean that it was magically caused by god

2 - The argument from miracles:
This argument says that certain unexplained events are a product of god, such as people magically recovering from an incurable illness and other similar facts. This argument can easily be dismissed - Firstly, some things are not explainable currently but will be so in the future (most of them actually), and secondly, even if it was true we might as well argue that some recovered from an illness because of the power the human mind has rather than god, once again, it doesn't mean god caused the cure, it could be from a unicorn, the power of the human mind or even complete random

3 - Pascal's wager:
Since it is impossible to say for 100% if a god exists or not, the disadvantages of not believing would be more serious if god exists (eternal punishment), whilst the cons of believing even if god didn't exist would be simply to abstain from certain sinful behavior and some pleasures. According to pascal, if you choose to believe you increase your chances already with eternal reward, it's preferable to believe by a matter of safety, since even if god doesn't exist you will cease to exist and have nothing to lose in trying to enter heaven in case god exists. This argument is usually dismissed using the popular phrase 'What if I chose the wrong God' - While it makes sense, I do not support this counter argument since by believing in a god/religion you are already increasing your chances, at least the probability of eternal reward is slightly higher, and choosing the wrong god or not believing will get you the same punishment (in case god exists). The main counter argument, in my opinion, is that if a god existed, since god has certain characteristics that grant him supreme authority, would know your reasons for believing and most likely would be mad for you having faith not genuinely but merely by reasons of entering heaven to benefit your own self, in a sense that faith derived from pascal's wager seems a like hypocrite and forced.

I hope I helped with this, if there is any more theist argument that has great importance let me know.

The only argument for "god," though I'm happier with the term "intelligent force," that I find mildly interesting is the argument from design; the existence of a Universe finely-tuned for organisms such as us. Even still this argument is little more than wishful speculation.