In this post, this endeavor will examine to discuss some of the common or best-known arguments to prove that God exists. However, this endeavor will not be looking at subjective arguments, only objective ones that can have some reasonable, logical, or rational validity that can be objectively examined and analyzed.
Subjective arguments are usually based on personal experience or feelings (including baseless "opinions" that are nothing more than just emotional preferences and inclinations). Which, to say the least, is highly unreliable. Mankind is generally self-deceiving, delusional liars, nearly every single one of us. This is an absolutely rationally irrefutable fact. Just take a look at the literally tons of totally senseless religions and beliefs that mankind subscribes to.
According to the Pew Research Center statistic over three-quarters of the world's population is religious. All believing that their religions and their deities are real and living somewhere up in the sky or on some mountain. Even right up to this day, most religious people still believe this. With the far greater majority of these believers believing that they will go up to heaven on their death. And their dead kindreds are up there in the sky looking down on them.
Except for the smartphones that most people today carry around with them everywhere they go, our minds are still stuck in an ancient, primitive time of gross ignorance and irrational superstitions. Today, with all that mankind has learned from the discoveries of science, the civilization of mankind is filled to the brim with utterly senseless beliefs. It is just completely insane.
Not only do mankind still retained much of the senseless, absurd beliefs of our primitive ancestors, we have also spawned tons of new, equally, if not even more, absurd and bizarre ones. Just do a Google search for religions that were of more recent origin, starting from the fifteenth century CE to today. Or just go to Wikipedia for the list of religions and spiritual traditions.
No doubt all of these recent (including most ancient) ones have been conceived from the picking and choosing of the beliefs and doctrines of several (other) ancient religions, then added with spins and twists from new discoveries and knowledge of life, our planet, and the universe. Even those from fiction, especially movies. To incorporate whatever these inventors of religions or the ones who succeeded them to helm these numerous religions that are most helpful to advancing them, and the religions they helmed.
If we were to include those religious beliefs that are not "officially" recognized (as such by the UN) and those that are variants or offshoots from traditional, aka ancient, religions (but are considered as the same religion as those they were spawned from), the numbers easily go into the thousands or more.
Here are three questions for those who believe that they are intelligent (and not just think that they are). If they are actually intelligent and knowledgeable, they would (or should anyway) know the answer.
One. What is the primary thing that every single academically educated adult human today should know about themselves, what they actually are as a lifeform of our planet Earth? And as this lifeform, know that they are not actually what they all appear to be. Almost no one seems to consciously know this (the author excluded, of course). How about you?
Two. Approximately (the percentage varies from country to country, but overall) a third of the world population believes in ghosts (as the afterlife of dead humans). Roughly a fifth claimed they have seen, heard, or in other ways interact with ghosts. But not a single one of them understands the first and simplest thing about ghosts. How about you, do you understand this very first and simplest thing to know about ghosts?
Three. If you think you have died (and were being drawn to heaven or gone to heaven/hell), then (i.e., it just means) that you have not died. Apparently, most people just don't understand this very simple thing. How about you, do you understand this very simple thing?
If you think you know the answers to those questions posed above or just want to know the answers, you can if you want to (not if you don't want to) read my book, "Is God for Real?" for the definitive answers.
Which is why there is no point in examining subjective arguments because mankind all are basically totally delusional. We all will totally deceive (i.e., lie to) ourselves so that we can believe whatever we lusted totally to believe in. Including believing that we are someone very special or someone very great (from whatever and forever whatever reason).
Transcendental (universality), Cosmological (a First Cause), Teleological (Intelligent Design), and Contingency (Necessary Being) Arguments
The transcendental premise is based on the assumption of the universality of the laws of logic, but without the ability to prove its universality. To assume that our reality, aka universe, is all of reality and therefore the universality of all existence and laws (the foundation principle or framework to reality and existence), is presumptuous at best, arrogance at worst.
However, by placing the concluding object or answer to this premise or argument as God, they effectively rule out the universality of our universe as all there is, but as just a (i.e., any number of possible) creation. Explicitly stating that our universe or reality actually is not all there is. In effect, contradicting their own premise. And of course, they are all totally clueless about this contradiction.
Of objective arguments, transcendental, cosmological, teleological, and contingency are the most common arguments or premises used to prove the existence of God. The main focus of all these concepts is on causality, that there must be a cause, including the very first or initial cause, responsible for all these things to be able to exist and to be possible. That there is someone who must be the cause or first cause who is outside of our ability to perceive, sense, or detect, responsible for all these things.
Causality (i.e., in especially a first cause) and design (i.e., intelligent cause to these intricate and complex design aka finetuning) premises are valid arguments or premises. But to conclude that this cause or first cause can only be God still requires more arguments or premises that must first broach the question of why it must only be God and not something else, whether one thing or numerous things, as the cause and first/initial cause.
The obvious fact is that our universe has a beginning, and nothing can "be the cause of itself", and randomness cannot produce or result in the intricacy and complexity of all things in the universe. And everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, the universe must have had a cause or an uncaused cause to its beginning. Therefore, there must be a first cause that is intelligent for the universe and all things in it to exist and be possible. This ultimate first cause is then identified with God.
While this argument can be valid or have validity bases, it fails to address two key issues.
Here are the two major problems with these arguments.
One: As stated, nothing can be the cause of itself (but not if science has anything to say about it), whereas (so the argument implied) God can. Since the argument is that God can, then why not something else other than God, also can be the cause of itself? If God is or can be perpetually existing, why cannot something else also can be perpetually existing? How can something else other than God be ruled out? What are the reasons to rule anything else out? This consideration is completely ignored for no other reason than personal (subjective) biases.
This basically is what the Big Bang theory (some variants anyway) is arguing. And this is that the Big Bang is a perpetually existing thing. Either as a Singularity, a quantum vacuum, or something ultra-mega compressed or condensed, which then expanded into the universe. Then, after billions to trillions of years of expansion, reversing whatever it first expanded from. With the process continuing indefinitely, endlessly, or perpetually.
Which was why a great man of science (since deceased) asked, "If God created the universe, then who created God?" Implying that if God can be perpetually existing, why can't the Big Bang or something else too be perpetually existing?
But not only does science posit the Big Bang, today many scientists are advocating our universe as originating from a Quantum Vacuum (i.e., absolute and total nothing) that is constantly miraculously, magically, supernaturally, or paranormally creating Quantum particles and destroying them. Thus effectively declaring that total or absolute nothing is the source and cause of all things of reality. The double speak of science is essentially and effectively declaring that nothing absolutely is needed to be the first cause (i.e., meaning no cause) absolutely is needed for reality to come into existence or to begin to exist. Because it all came from nothing.
This is either absolutely unimaginable, beyond belief, ingenious brilliance, or total and absolute insanity and unfathomable stupidity. I leave it to you, the readers, to decide.
But of course, science has redefined the word "nothing" especially "absolutely nothing" of a "quantum vacuum" (whatever the "heck" that means"). With science "nothing, absolute nothing/vacuum, and quantum vacuum" is now redefined in a brand new twist and spin, as actually not "nothing, absolute nothing/vacuum, and quantum vacuum", but that this is actually something. Talk about doublespeak.
Yes, "nothing, absolute nothing/vacuum, and quantum vacuum" is now redefined as still having "energy" inside them. It does make you wonder why go to all that trouble just to pull a fast one on mankind?
Yes, "nothing, absolute nothing, and quantum vacuum", according to the latest science, is not actually empty and devoid of anything at all but has energy in it. Effectively, then, science has redefined energy as "nothing, absolute nothing/vacuum, and quantum vacuum". Which means that when our bodies and other lifeforms of planet Earth make use of energy to function, grow, and whatever else, we are all actually utilizing "nothing, absolute nothing/vacuum, and quantum vacuum".
Getting back to the discussion of all these arguments for the existence of God, with all just postulating God as the only possible answer.
It is just not sufficient to just proclaim that everything which we cannot explain the cause and answer for, the answer must be God, and just leave it at that without future explanation and elaboration. That is the absurdity of an ancient, grossly ignorant age. To say the cause can only and must only be God itself needed justification or elaboration. There could be other possible causes of reality and existence that man does not have knowledge about.
By presuming God as the answer, those arguing the case essentially make the same assumption (or more appropriately, presumption) that our scientists have been making since science became a thing. And this is that they already know all there is know and nothing is unknown to them. Including all that they can see and perceive is all there is; there is nothing else. This was when, in “ancient times of great ignorance", science declared our Milky Galaxy as the entirety of reality (aka the universe) and proclaimed that the atom is the tiniest indivisible unit of matter. A lesson, tragically, our scientists haven't learned until today.
All the publications arguing the case for the existence of God all totally fail on this count. But this is not the only thing that they all failed on/at for their arguments to be accepted as valid and conclusive arguments in the case of God's existence.
The other point they all totally failed at is in their definition of God. All of them have God as nothing more than just an idealized (i.e., fantasy) concept. All without justifying or explaining why God is as they have defined Him. Most of these definitions are based on the Judeo-Christian Scripture, as the bulk of these authors arguing the case of the existence of God have been believing subscribers of the various religions claiming this Scripture.
Even in the book "God, the Science, the Evidence by Michel-Yves Bolloré & Olivier Bonnassies" though it tried to define God from a "scientific hypothesis", the book nonetheless based its hypothesis of a "personal God" on the Judeo-Christian Scripture without specifically aligning this reference to any of the many (sects. variants, offshoots; derivatives into those branded as heretic) religions claiming the entirety of this Scripture to lay claim to the God of this Scripture that it is their, nominally to completely, different Gods. All of which advocate or advance different (i.e., their own preferred) versions that are from nominally to entirely different from one another.
With all these different versions of God as defined and advanced by mankind, it must be imperative to be explicitly clear which and what God they are basing their answer and conclusion on for their arguments. And more importantly, why? Because the conclusion to your premises or arguments cannot be vague and unclear.
None of these proponents for the existence of God even bothered to discount any of the numerous other religions that mankind subscribes to. If you are arguing God as from some specific religions or Scripture, you absolutely must include explanations and justifications for discounting all the other Gods or whatever else of other religions.
Failing to do so, whatever conclusion you arrive at becomes just purely an opinion based on your beliefs and superstitions. Effectively rendering all your hypotheses or arguments as just used to advance a conclusion is totally just a bias/preference and completely subjective. Based on nothing else but your opinion or belief.
The main reason they didn't or failed to do so was because these arguments have not been so much arguing a case of God's existence but more arguing that their God is this God. That further makes all these arguments just totally subjective based on their beliefs. And not a case to determine the truth of the matter on whether God is real or exists.
Two: God. When you define the answer (or conclusion) to your arguments as something or someone, you need firstly to have clarity and validity for what that something and someone is and also is not. If you based your conclusion or concluding answer just on an idea such as perfection, the greatest, the most absolute superlative, which are basically an idealized and fantasized idea, you must give rational reasons why such an idea is (and not just can be) something that is real and not just pure unadulterated fantasy.
In most publications (including books) arguing for the existence of God, God is always invariably defined in ideal (aka fantasy) terms, as an idealized or fantasy object, as the most, the greatest, the perfection that none else can be equal with, much less greater than, etc. In all these arguments for God as the answer to all their arguments, God is defined as in any and all sense the greatest conceivable being. The problem none of them bothered to address is how they know that such a being exists in reality and not just in pure fantasy (i.e., as an idealized or fantasized idea).
What this means is that they are saying nothing more than because "I said so" or because "someone said so" in their conclusion. Including because everyone said so, or that it is recorded in the Scripture (of some religion).
Here is a quote from Google's AI:
Books arguing for the existence of God generally define Him as an uncaused, eternal, necessary, and intelligent creator who is both personal and supreme. This definition commonly includes traits like omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. Key definitions include:
First Cause/Prime Mover: An uncaused being that initiated the universe.
Designer: An intelligent agent responsible for the complex, orderly structure of the cosmos.
Moral Lawgiver: The objective source of universal moral values.
Ontological Maximum: A being than which nothing greater can be imagined.
These arguments often frame God as the ultimate explanation for existence, logic, and objective morality.
The above quote, in essence, is an idealized idea of God that borders on fantasy. An idea of the mind and not necessarily a reality. Unless you present or can present, some concrete (as something tangible and not just fantasy intangible thinking and ideas) or rationally irrefutable proofs that this idea of God you defined is or can be a reality. Otherwise, it is nothing but just pure unadulterated fantasy.
None of these arguments of God as the greatest conceivable being offered up any reason why there would be "a greatest (from all desirable aspects) conceivable being proclaimed as God" except that they all proclaimed it as a given (as a natural idea) that needs no explanation.
Or any of the other things they proclaim that this God is, such as: moral law giver, perfectly good including all desirable related concepts; all-powerful; all-knowing; greatest conceivable entity or being; life giver, etc.
At this point in this post, if you are (actually and not cluelessly) intelligent, you must have noted or discerned something about all these objective arguments to prove the existence of God. And this is the conclusion to all of them are completely subjective in their interpretation of God, what He is and is not. And also why the conclusion can only be God and not something else, perpetually existing whether one thing or many things (or entities).
Making all these arguments for the existence of God, not objective arguments, but subjective arguments. I wonder how many among those who read them (including all those who presented) were/are cognizant of this very obvious fact?
Other Problems with Attributing the Cause as God
Most of those who wrote on to publish their case for God's belong to one of the main so-called Abrahamic religions. By this alone, they are all biased towards the specific religion or one of its offshoots, branch-offs, or break-offs. This further makes their arguments into subjective and even totally biased, arguments.
If they are being objective in their argument for the existence of God, they must consider all the gods of all other religions of mankind. Even if it is to argue to just discount them. They must present the case that the God (that they declared) cannot be any of the gods of any of these other religions, and very importantly, why not?
Which, sadly, all of them failed or neglected to do. This makes their conclusion that the only cause of all their premises can only be God even more subjective (based entirely on their opinion, view, and belief, and nothing else) than it already is when they concluded that the cause can only be God and nothing else but God.
If you say something is the conclusion to your arguments, you need to be specific and clear what this thing is, and also what it is not. And it cannot be just some beliefs that are just an idealized or fantasized object. Without clarity on how these idealized or fantasized ideas can be something that is real and not remain as nothing more than an ideal or fantasy.
And the first clarity to this is why and how is this God is not tangibly experienced by humans, especially today. Followed by any arguments that may validly discount this conclusion as valid. Without taking all these into consideration, an idealized or fantasized idea itself cannot take on any validity to be declared as not just reality but the ultimate of reality and existence.
Here are other failures that all the published endeavors to prove the existence of God failed to be clear on: what is or could be God purpose for creating the universe and especially us, mankind; the case of evil why this God claimed as God would create a reality full of evil; how to account for God's total absence from being involved with our social order especially today; and why God would take billions of years after creating the universe before creating mankind as according to science the Homo sapiens did not appeared on planet Earth until some hundreds of thousand years ago.
All these we will examine in the next installment.
□
This discussion series:
Other Published Arguments for the Existence of God
Ignoring Basic Questions That Needed to be Addressed
Inconclusive Arguments with a Fantasy Conclusion
Read My Rationally Irrefutable Conclusion to the Reality of God
Next in this Series: Ignoring Basic Questions That Needed to be Addressed
Previous in this Series: Science's Answers for Us and Our Universe Existing
Previous Post > GOD's Communication with Mankind. Part 1
Next Post > By Their Fruits You will Know Them.
Next Post > By Their Fruits You will Know Them.
Special Note
Please note that all discussions by this author are based on a general non expert assessment of information gathered from material published in the public domain (i.e., readily available to members of the general public). All of this author's discussions are presented as material for any and all lay persons with no special expertise. Anyone twelve years of age and older, who is not mentally incapacitated in some ways, would (or should anyway) be able to understand anyall the discussions of this author. No one needs to be an expert or a genius to be able to understand the simple and straight forward truths discussed by this author.
The main basis of all this author's discussions is the original inspired texts of the Christian Holy Scriptures sourced from material currently (at time of the posting) publicly available as ‘translated’ text in numerous version of the Christian Bible and extensively referenced by the Strong Exhaustive Concordance of the King James Version. The discussions' focus and context are with respect to this author's Christian commitment, worship and beliefs through the calling of ALMIGHTY GOD to the baptism of repentance into the Everlasting Covenant mediated by LORD JESUS of the Christian Bible Gospel's and the full New Covenant's accounts.
The referenced sources for all other religions and system of beliefs (hereafter referred to as the Referenced Sources), are to materials freely available and published online on the World Wide Web and other internet service protocols on the Internet. These are published by either: the generally proclaimed, acclaimed and acknowledged experts and masters; or the self proclaimed, acclaimed and acknowledged experts and masters of such beliefs and religions; as well as of all others who published dissertations and discussions on these system of beliefs and religions whether presented as biased or unbiased discussion, dissertations or compilations.
The materials directly and specifically attributed to, as sources that form the basis to this author's discussions topics on other system of beliefs and religions are by no means all the sources referenced by this author but just a small sampling of such information that are accurate contextual representations of what is widely published to discuss, proclaim, assert, pronounce andor decree as the so claimed truth andor the direct communications from the ALMIGHTY CREATOR.
Anyone who disputes the accuracy or truthfulness of the discussions, dissertations and assertions with regards to other religions and systems of beliefs (other than the true Christian faith and worship of this author) are requested to take the matter up with the Reference Sources.
This author at no point claimed to be discussing the original work of the originators of any other religions or system of beliefs other than the Christian Commitment by the Everlasting Covenant mediated by LORD JESUS. All discussions of other religions and system of beliefs are based solely on what have been published and were available prior to the time the discussion was posted, and attributed to the Referenced Sources.
Please bear in mind that almost all the Referenced Sources of nearly all religions and system of beliefs as well as those who discussed andor compiled such material information varied their doctrines, assertions, claims (to accuracy, validity or authenticity) andor teachings significantly from time to time through the course of human history, as well as by their various and differing members of those who are the contemporary proclaimed and acclaimed experts, authorities andor masters of these knowledge, information, religions and system of beliefs, whether they are those generally acknowledged by the human social order andor those who claimed affiliations to these religions and systems of beliefs, or those who are self appointed. Therefore if anyone finds any discussion by this author on these religions and system of beliefs to be inaccurate, they should refer back to those materials published on these religions and system of beliefs that were contemporary to the date the discussion was first posted.
Updated: 2025 09 10
First Published: 2026 02 12
© Quah 2025 – 2026. All rights reserved
