On Proofs of God

Proofs for the existence of God abound for those who do not need them. --Dávila

Last night I watched an interesting podcast of an atheist and agnostic ranking the classic proofs of God from A to F, with a higher category called S for superlative. 

They did a better job of articulating the arguments than do most Christians, and placed the argument from contingency at the top, with the fine-tuning argument earning an A.  

One of the podcasters (the agnostic) has a 12 hour video in which he discusses over 100 arguments for God. Viewed in aggregate one would think that all of the arguments taken together would be rather convincing, but I don't know if he addresses this angle. In any event, even an intellectually serious atheist knows that

If it is not of God that we are speaking, it is not sensible to speak of anything seriously.

Even the serious denial of God is more interesting than a lukewarm acceptance.

Nevertheless, in the end, 

Only the theocentric vision does not end up reducing man to absolute insignificance.

Man is not absolutely insignificant, ergo God? Works for me. 

If God does not exist we should not conclude that everything is permissible, but that nothing matters.

For most if not all of the arguments there is just enough evidence to adopt one side or the other if one is so inclined. It seems that, try as we might, we can never eliminate the leap of faith. Somewhat ironically, this goes for both sides, as it requires an equally great leap of faith to adopt atheism. 

There are arguments of increasing validity, but, in short, no argument in any field spares us the final leap.

The Aphorist also says that  

If God were the conclusion of a rational argument I would feel no need to worship him.

After all, we can prove any number of things, but it doesn't mean we ought to worship them. Indeed,

If we could demonstrate the existence of God, everything would eventually be subjected to the sovereignty of man.

Reason only gets us so far in this Gödelian cosmos, for

God is not the object of my reason, nor of my sensibility, but of my being. 

For my money, the most compelling argument in favor of atheism is how to square the existence of evil with an omnipotent God, which is why I am sympathetic to dialing back the latter in order to clear God of any charges against him.

But again, either way, no mere argument spares us the final leap. However, this may not be a leap of faith, but rather, a "leap of vision," so to speak, for 

Faith is not an irrational assent to a proposition; it is a perception of a special order of realities.

Which is more how I look at it -- religion is, as it were, a way of talking about this special order of realities, and the map is not the territory. It is not something we look at, but rather, the lens we perceive through. 

Another important point is that, once one accepts God, it is as if further dimensions of this special order are illuminated as a consequence of grace or something (some kind of vertical x-factor). And

God allows man to raise barricades against the invasion of grace.

Moreover, supposing God is a person, 

The existence of God is indemonstrable, because with a person the only thing we can do is bump into him. 

In the end -- or beginning? --  

The sole proof of the existence of God is His existence.

Which sounds like a tautology but actually goes to the one of the arguments referenced at the top, for if God is even possible then he is necessary, this because he is far more plausible than anything else on offer:

Either God or chance: all other terms are disguises for one another. 

Me? I suppose my favorite argument is something like the following: 

If the totality of reality is completely intelligible, then God exists.

But the totality of reality is completely intelligible.

Therefore God exists. 

Schuon says something similar, that "human intelligence coincides in its essence with the Absolute," whatever one calls the latter. 

Not only is this a talking universe, but it never shuts up. Nor does it talk nonsense, which is what Einstein found so surprising, i.e., the endless comprehensibility to our comprehension.

In short, the total intelligibility of the world to our intelligence -- or the conformity of the immaterial intellect to reality -- demands a sufficient reason. And chance doesn't cut it.

Another favorite is from entropy, for if the universe has always existed, it would long since have reached maximum disorder. Where does all the information come from, and again, why is it so intelligible? 

But to repeat, no argument spares one the final leap. Well, except for direct intellection, which is not so much a leaping as a seeing. Or even "a spontaneous intuition" which

contains in an infused manner the certainty transmitted by the proofs of God or [of] the supernatural (Schuon).

I have a feeling we're just getting started.