Arguments for God's Existence Tier List

--

Synopsis:

Fancy seeing every popular argument for God's existence (and the modal ontological argument) ranked in a tier list? Look no further!

--

References:

--

Timestamps:

00:00 DEBUNKED!
02:56 Pascal's Wager
09:43 Fine-Tuning
18:04 Kalam Cosmological Argument
27:10 Contingency Argument
34:21 Watchmaker Argument
41:27 Genetic Information Argument
49:31 Anselm's Ontological Argument
56:54 Modal Ontological Argument
1:06:06 Moral Argument
1:13:39 Personal Experience
1:22:39 Much love!

--

#God #atheism #philosophy

[godless]

Pascal's Wager isn't even an argument for the existence of a god, it's an argument for the utility of pretending you believe a god exists.

[Templetonq]

My favourite argument:

You attack <insert belief here> because, deep down, you know it's true. You never try to prove the nonexistence of Leprechauns.

[dangouge]

Homer took down Pascal years ago, "Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're making him madder and madder."

[gristlybillow]

the only s tier argument is "you'll find out when youre dead"
i cant refute that

[aagereinertjakobsen]

In my opinion personal experience is the toughest argument because in order to refute it you have to make people question their sanity, rather than their reasoning, which is always going to turn people off and end the conversation. Skepticism will be interpreted as gaslighting.

[Thisworldistoobig]

"Go pray for an ounce of critical thinking."

Dude, that was savage. 🤣

[MagereHein]

"Theists like to refer to the beauty of the trees and the birds, but they also got to account for the nightmare fuel of parasites and Frank Turek." 😂

[mmerri]

I went down the youtube atheist rabbit hole when I first found Hitchen' debates. Found Rationality Rules shortly thereafter. 3 years later I've come back to your channel and you really are, in my opinion, the gold standard Stephen. Thanks for the years of amazing content.

[BrianMelancon]

At every step I had to admit to myself that, "This is the worst argument." Even though it would seem impossible, I think this list proves that there is a set of arguments that are all worse than all the other arguments in that set.

[greylonewolf]

You, along with Cosmic skeptic, Pine creek, Harris Sultan, Apostate Prophet, Apostate Aladdin, Abdullah Sameer, Hassan Radwan, Genetically modified skeptic and many others have really helped in my hard times.
Thanks, mate.

[fritznovak]

Next you should do a gods tier list. Would love to hear you rank them from least shit to most shit

[garyhughes]

This is my now go-to video for all arguments concerning God’s existence. Everything in one place, all explained eloquently, and the best, in my view, of the recently posted ‘ranking’ videos of such arguments. My favourite has always been the contingency argument. I remember first hearing the Russell-Copleston debate many years ago, and later reading about it in the Leibniz section of Russell’s history. Now, after watching and listening to all these arguments, so well put together by Stephen (and with wonderful humour), I can see that there are many more likely contenders for the so-called ‘best’ argument for God’s existence. A really good video. Brilliant in fact. Thx for posting.

[Minisynapse]

Pascal's Wager: I pretend I believe in a deity so that it won't punish me for nonbelief, despite it being omniscient and knowing that I'm just pretending.

[kevincrady]

The Fine-Tuning argument is self-contradictory. Here's how:

1) Either the Fine-Tuner(s) is/are matter/energy being(s) living in a Cosmos exactly like this one and subject to the same physics, or they are not.

2) If it/they are, then it/they are not a Tri-Omni god who is transcendent of matter/energy and physics.

3) If it/they are not, then it is possible for conscious life to exist in a circumstance that is _not_ a Cosmos exactly like this one.

3.1) If there is at least one way for conscious life to exist without residing in a Cosmos exactly like this one, there could be many more.

Therefore "fine-tuning" a Cosmos to be exactly like this one is not necessary for life to exist.

*Bonus Section:*

1) The vast, vast, _vast_ majority of this Cosmos is utterly inhospitable to life.

2) Therefore, if it was "fine-tuned, " we cannot rule out the possibility that it was "fine-tuned" for some other purpose than as a home for life. Bacteria on a doorknob somewhere in the Large Hadron Collider: "We can live here, so the Great Bacterium must have fine-tuned this place for _us!"_

[jarlaxledaerthe]

Also I must say that the watchmaker argument is abysmal.
Essentially it argues that complexity is evidence for an intelligent designer, but then who intelligently designed gods complexity?
And if gods complexity does not require an intelligent designer, then how is complexity evidence for intelligent design?!?!

[JMUDoc]

The fine-tuning argument refutes itself - why would the universe REQUIRE tuning, if the creator is all-powerful?

[wjpperry]

I think personal experience is the only S tier argument. If you refute someone's personal experience their immediate response is that you are calling them a liar, and thus a nonstarter for a discussion. I know a few good, honest people that claim Devine experiences and I don't believe they're lying, just mistaken, but there is no way to convince someone they didn't see what they saw or feel what they felt.

[rychei]

Fine tuning: an argument from ignorance, plain and simple.

[slower__]

I've been watching your channel for years and THIS is the BEST one. Absolutely brilliant format and thorough research. Outstanding brother!

[dianarising]

Thanks! This was a very interesting exploration of the various arguments. Your conclusions really make sense.