Best and worst arguments for the existence of God

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The best argument for the existence of God is biting the bullet on the dogmatic-axiomatic horn of the Münchhausen trilemma as opposed to one of the other two horns. The worst is the ontological argument, but it's also the funniest.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The best argument for the existence of God is biting the bullet on the dogmatic-axiomatic horn of the Münchhausen trilemma as opposed to one of the other two horns. The worst is the ontological argument, but it's also the funniest.

Ain’t nobody got time definition searching, do a Fannon man

Good point. Thanks, PSOL.

The best argument is deciding you'd rather have your worldview be based on unprovable premises than on circular thinking or infinite regress (the only three real options). The worst argument is "God is good, and it's better to exist than not to exist, therefore He must exist, otherwise He isn't God and whatever exists instead of Him is God," but it's also the funniest.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The best argument (which might have been expressed here steady...I think) is 'because I just do.'

It's not as weak rhetorically as it sounds. It centres the belief on the person themselves which is better grounds for discussion than appeals to circular or drawn out philosophy.

The worst is trinitarian Christianity (see afleitch passim) which at it's core is half a step away from the same mythos as Zeus' paternal exploits (though to be fair, at least he made a physical appearance.)

I wouldn't consider any of the various Trinitarian doctrines an "argument for the existence of God". You're right that they don't work very well as one, but I think that's because that just isn't what they are.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Secondly the ontological prove works - but it proves only, that GOD must exist, not, that HE actually exists.

Can you expound this distinction?