A good argument for God's existence (long but worth it)

[Mister Agenda]

By/through the name of God....(all/the) praise is to God...
Why does it refute the argument of evil? The argument of evil seeks to impose an ideal image of what God should be and do with respect to his actions, which ultimately, would best reflect benign wisdom and loving grace. Or it says, that if God was anywhere near goodness, he would not allow evil to exist or not allow suffering to the extent he has allowed. This verse is saying something that must be true if God exists. That it is through God's Name that we would properly praise God, or else that we would not attribute all praise to him.

Okay, let's unpack this. First all of the above could be deleted without affecting your argument at all. Your actual attempt to present an argument seems to begin below.

The name of God is obviously connected to God, so it makes no sense to say "the name of God" points to this concept, that the name of God somehow exists, and properly manifests what an ultimate being would be to a degree, that we have a reference to what an ultimate being would be, but that no such being exists.

Yeah, it would be like someone saying Darth Vader or Superman aren't real. The name of Superman is obviously connected to Superman, so it makes no sense to say 'the name Superman' points to his concept, that we have reference to a being that doesn't exist. It just doesn't make sense, so Superman must be real.

It is insane to think we would know what ultimate greatness would be and how it would act, while there is no connection to it.
The argument of evil falls flat in that regard and becomes paradoxical.  It has no argument.

The argument from evil is a response to the claim that there is an omnipotent being who is infinitely good. Evil can only exist in the presence of an omnipotent being if the omnipotent being allows it or doesn't know about it. It doesn't apply to versions of God that are so unfathomable that one can't tell from its supposed works whether it favors good or evil.

But let us go further. Does it refute atheism?

You shouldn't try to go further until you've succeed in what you've attempted so far. I presume that by 'refute atheism' you mean to demonstrate that belief in Allah is rationally justified.

Let us begin with some reflections. What is a name? A name is just sounds or letters symbolizing sounds – but – it is how we remember people with an image. In the case of God, is his image different then his name? Or is the word of light, also the face of his light?

Names are arbitrary symbols designating something, real or imagined, They're like the legend of a map. The map is an approximate representation of something, not the thing itself, and names are like symbols that help you describe the map. We can easily remember the image of people whose name we don't know, btw.

The name of God is by which if God exists, we would recall the ultimate being.

There is nothing that exists in reality 'by its name'. Real things exist whether they have names or not. We can recall things even if we don't name them. Most animals don't use names at all and can recall things just fine.

What does the term “God” mean in Arabic? It means that which is worshipped. When we value ourselves above all else, we are essentially saying we are more important then everything else. We think love inside our hearts should be most oriented towards ourselves. When we love close family or friends just as much, that would be the highest value we give. You cannot no matter how much you try to escape it or avoid the term, not worship. Humans value something higher on scale than most things, be it it whatever jokes may follow, sex, boobs, w/e.

'Worship' is a word with multiple senses. When you use different senses of the same word to confuse distinctions, it's called the fallacy of equivocation. You are equivocating the meaning of worship as 'religious adoration and veneration' with mundane admiration and valuation. I've been religious, and the way I value the things I value now are nothing like the abject worship of a deity that I once engaged in. I love my family and friends, but I don't worship them and they don't want to be worshipped.

noun: worship

1. the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.
"the worship of God"

synonyms: reverence, veneration, adoration, glorification, glory, exaltation; More
devotion, praise, thanksgiving, homage, honor;
archaicmagnification

"the worship of idols"

•the acts or rites that make up a formal expression of reverence for a deity; a religious ceremony or ceremonies.
"the church was opened for public worship"

synonyms: service, religious rite, prayer, praise, devotion, religious observance
"morning worship"

•adoration or devotion comparable to religious homage, shown toward a person or principle.
"our society’s worship of teenagers"

synonyms: admiration, adulation, idolization, lionization, hero worship
"he contemplated her with worship"

verb

verb: worship; 3rd person present: worships; past tense: worshipped; past participle: worshipped; gerund or present participle: worshipping; past tense: worshiped; past participle: worshiped; gerund or present participle: worshiping

1.
show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites.
"the Maya built jungle pyramids to worship their gods"

synonyms: revere, reverence, venerate, pay homage to, honor, adore, praise, pray to, glorify, exalt, extol; More
hold dear, cherish, treasure, esteem, adulate, idolize, deify, hero-worship, lionize, overpraise;

follow, look up to;

informalput on a pedestal;

formallaud;

archaicmagnify

"they worship pagan gods"

To say you worship something is it say that you value things with degrees.

When you torture a word enough, you can make it mean anything, I suppose.

When God is not valued at highest degree such that everything really pales to that value and respect given to him not given at a much higher level then everything else, than it can be said we have multiple things we value at a very high level.

That sounds like an argument for not valuing god in the highest degree. That way you can have multiple things we value at a very high level.

With most humans, it’s not that they don’t value God, it is just that they don’t value him enough to the extent they value other things or others or themselves as much or even more then God.

Um, are you still trying to prove the existence of God? You seem to be on a preaching tangent.

The name of “that which ought to be valued the most” in possibility worlds speaking, has to be a connection that makes us know what ought to be valued the most.

No, it doesn't.

This is true regardless now if supernatural being exists or not.

Whether it's true depends on whether the supposed thing that ought to be valued the most really exists or not.

It is true I am saying regardless if a spirit Creator exists or not. At this point. But I will be showing, the opposite as well. That now I say for sake of argument, it is true regardless if a spirit Eternal creator or not, only to show that it is essential a spirit Eternal Creator exists and is that being.

And this comes under the heading of 'mere assertion'.

The regardless whether “God” exists, or not, that this is true, is because if you think about it,  there has to be something that ought to be valued the most at least by us as an individual objectively.

Even if that's true, it doesn't mean that it should be the same thing for everyone, or that what should be valued the most can't change depending on the circumstances. When I'm coming home, I value greeting my family the most. When I'm drowning, I value getting a breath of air the most.

A person can say they are that person because they have control over, a mother may feel that is her baby because it depends on her to nourish it, etc, etc…
Whatever it is, something ought to be valued the most.

I feel like I can value multiple things equally, or that what I value the most can shift depending on what I need the most at the time. I don't see why I should commit to giving one thing prime value under any and all circumstances. Especially not just because you say so.

Now let us talk about what connects us to know and recall that thing? All existing good conscious beings I would argue together including the most to be valued from them, are more important than just an individual from them (but would include that individual that ought to be valued most).

This seems to be gibberish. Are you using a translator?

 
Now we can say “the need of the many ought weight that of a few” or something on those lines.
 
But what makes us KNOW this.

We don't KNOW it in capital letters. You're describing the axiom of Utilitarianism, a secular moral philosophy. We have innate moral sentiments such as fairness and reciprocity, but the principle that 'what is good for the greatest number is good' is not one of them.

So far we talked about quantity, but what about quality. What qualities would make an individual out of the collective the most one out of all individuals to be valued?
 
We can say I don’t know and we can’t know. But then we find ourselves still valuing something or someone more than others, and that we have degrees of value.

If so, it implies nothing about whether or not Allah is real.

The measuring balance by which things should be valued, I argue, is that very thing which connects us to that thing which would be valued the most and makes us know it.Without that measuring balance, we can’t value anything with right balanced measure, we become unbalanced in how we perceive people.

More assertions.

We maybe harshly judgmental or positively judgmental, but it maybe none of that is on truth.I argue value has to be if there is something we ought to value the most, has to be based on truth. That truth has to be the eyes by which we measure it. I also argue that truth is that name/connection/reference/sign/pointer/indication/image of that which ought to be valued the most.

Truth is that which conforms to reality. Something is true or not true whether or not it has a name/connection/reference/sign/pointer/indication/image of that which ought to be valued the most.
 

But if we think about it, and we really we really think about it, can that which be valued the most be limited?

Yes, obviously.

Since we said the true measurement is that name, it must indicate all measurements of all values possible.

Just because you said something, it doesn't mean anything must be indicated.

But we know we can’t measure all scales and we don’t, so what does it mean?  IT means it is a like an arrow aimed at never reached sky, it realizes the endless boundary of value, that there is no limit of loving, valuing, and honoring, yet all this somehow connected to us, that we must measure by truth as argued before if we ought to value something more than others.

Were you high when you typed this?

 
To say there exists nothing we ought to value the most, but rather, we simple choose what we want to value the most, I will argue is not possible.

You mean you will assert that it's not possible.

I will argue when you value something more than others, you do so out of belief. You do so because you believe that thing ought to be valued, whether that belief is chaotic and stems from lust, or caprice, it doesn’t matter.

You don't really need to argue that, I'm happy to concede that we value what we value because of what we believe about the things that we value.

 
And there lies the issue.

FINALLY!

To believe there is a thing that ought to be valued the most is rational, and yet everyone would be ashamed to say “I am a god to myself” or “Hot women are my goal and gods…” etc….or “Money” or “Fame is one of my gods”.

To believe that there is a thing that ought to be valued the most is not rational if there is insufficent evidence that the thing actually exists to make such belief sufficiently rationally justified.  

Everyone knows truly there is but one thing worthy of being that which ought to be valued the most.

That's not true.

But the thought process doesn’t rely on the above line. I have shown logically and rationally, that.

You have asserted at length without foundation or establishing any of your premises as actually true.

1. We are connected to refer to and know and recognize that which ought to be valued the most.

Assertion

2. That which ought to be valued the most is an unbounded limitless sky, which we can aim to head to, but will never reach.

Assertion

3. That name which connects us to it is the same eyes by which we have to judge by ourselves, and know ourselves through, as well as perceive others through if there is any truth to “valuing”.

Assertion. And names are arbitrary designators for animals, concepts, persons, places, or things.  

There is MANY premises (these 3 are not initial premises, but what has been proven), and I thought numbering them and presenting them that way, but I have had bad experience with that.

A good argument is built on as few premises (assumptions) as possible. You don't have to subject us to walls of text, MK. You've done a lot of writing, but there doesn't seem to be an actual argument here. Not to be mean, but superficially it looks like you're using the wall of text method of obscuring the fact that you don't have a cogent argument for the existence of the deity you worship. But possibly you were just excited because you had a shiny new theological notion.