Argument Against This Guy: (My Favorite Argument for the Existence of God)
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/07/opinion/religion-god.html

This one is irony, hypocrisy, and frankly idiocy all in one.

I get that everyone has the right to their own opinion.  However, when you publish that opinion in the NYT and expect your non-air-tight reasoning to actually sway people - you're gonna catch some hands.

The writer says, "I think that the most compelling case for being religious — for a default view, before you get to the specifics of creeds and doctrines, that the universe was made for a reason and we’re part of that reason — is found at the convergence of multiple different lines of argument, the analysis of multiple different aspects of the existence in which we find ourselves."

Okay...as a synopsis of your argument, it isn't compelling at all.  Confusing would be more apt terminology.  But you'll get to the specifics, and they'll make sense, right?  Right?

Then he says, "Consider three big examples: the evidence for cosmic design in the fundamental laws and structure of the universe; the unusual place of human consciousness within the larger whole; and the persistence and plausibility of religious and supernatural experience even under supposedly disenchanted conditions"

We have no reasons for or against why the universe is the way it is, fundamental laws and all.  So no, the Fibonacci sequence does not prove the existence of God.

Human consciousness - here we go again.  Is it not completely self centered and subjective to think that the human mind is so amazing it proves God? 

Third - subjective experiences.  Personally, I find that human experiences usually if not always have an explanation beyond the mystic. 

So, I don't consider these examples as the basis of an argument that proves God exists in some form. 

The writer then offers their opinion on their favorite argument, and says, "I do generally think that the arguments related to the experiential — supernatural, mystical occurrences and miracles — are underrated, especially among professional arguers, relative to more philosophically driven claims."

So, barring any explanation they can personally understand, any mystical experiences or seeming miracles MUST PROVE GOD.  Jeeeeebus.  The human sensory experience is extremely fallible!  You cannot form convincing arguments on someone's subject experience.  Or are we believing in aliens now?! 

They then try to strengthen their argument, "However, the supernaturalist case inevitably relies on anecdata and subjective reports in a way that other arguments do not. For those allergic to such claims, a different underrated argument that I’d be inclined to emphasize is what you might call the argument from intelligibility, which sits at the intersection of two lines described above — the line of evidence from the fine-tuning of the universe and the line of evidence from the strange capacities of human consciousness."

They continue, "The strongest materialist counter-explanation for these wild-seeming coincidences is a conceit very familiar from today’s pop culture and comic-book movies — the idea of the multiverse, which answers the apparent bazillion-to-one odds against our own lifebearing universe appearing accidentally by postulating a bazillion universes that we unfortunately can’t see or taste or touch"

Ohhhkay.  So, you take one of the weakest explanations that don't fit your paradigm, the multi-verse, and argue that its either them or you.  Multiverse or God.  Not only that, but to argue against the subjective belief of the multi-verse with subjective opinions about how the order of the universe and supernatural experiences should prove something else instead - is hypocritical.  What makes your 'reasoning' any different or better than the reasoning behind the multiverse? 

Honestly, I can't even.  None of these arguments holds water.  They're all built on nothing but conjecture. 

They go on about the evolution of human consciousness and how it is unbelievable to think that higher reasoning - to better survive - coincided with the ability to objectify our universe in understandable ways. 

Okay fine.  I see how thinking about this would lead you down the path to God.  Now, here's my argument and belief about the world:

Human senses are limited.  There are things in the universe that we cannot sense, either with our bodies or our tools.  Infrared exists, for one.  Microwaves, radio waves, sound, etc.   These are things we cannot sense.  We have built tools that allow us to identify these things in some ways, yes.

However, if there are things we cannot sense in general - there MUST be other things we cannot perceive that we have no idea they exist.  That we cannot measure with any tool. 

That's it.  You can postulate anything you want from any line of thought or reasoning.  But the fact is - we...don't...know.  Human reasoning; the fine-tuned order of the universe; subjective/mystical/miraculous experiences we can't explain - these could mean ANYTHING.  To flat out say, they prove God - is just hubris. 

So there you go.  I offer my own opinion - that we know nothing - as a counterargument to this writer's ideas about how certain things must prove some kind of God.  I just could not read this without responding.  I don't offer any proof, or better arguments - just that we're stumbling through the universe mostly blind, but thinking we can see.  And this guy thinks he's got 3D glasses on while the rest of us are in a dark theater just trying to find out way out.