So I'm taking an intro-to-philosophy course in college so I can knock out some required core credits, right? We just finished some chapters on medieval philosophers like Augustine and Rene Descartes, who both make it a point to base much of their theory on first proving the Christian God exists. Most of their shit really has logically justifying belief in religion as a central role. Whether that's because they were really that religious, or simply didn't want to get burned for heresy in a time where the church ran academia, I guess we'll never know. But what I do know is that the professor for this class had an online discussion assignment, for whether we thought any sort of reasoning could "prove" God's existence, or any other sort of divine being for that matter. And if we didn't, what our argument was. Keep in mind this is a normie class, so she's referring to just plain ol' logic and drawing conclusions from the mundane world.
But I actually made a pretty thought-out response, and I thought maybe some people here would get a kick out of it: (Keep in mind that this is copy-pasted from the class discussion, so I obviously am speaking from the perspective of the normie I pretend to be. But still thought it'd be something interesting to share)
I do not think a proper argument can be posed about God in the traditional sense, based off religion. First off, what are we defining as "God"? Religion tends to picture God as a person, or at least somewhat personified. A thinking, feeling, conscious being with intent in every action, who continues to watch the earth. However, arguments posed by Augustine and the rest are not really using much logic surrounding God "the person", or God "the entity". They are speaking strictly about whether things had to have had a creator to exist, and evidence thereof. And whether, if this is true, what the ultimate creator of the first things in the universe was. However, a creator does not have to be a conscious being, if you look at how accidents happen all the time. It's simply assumed by these philosophers that things had to have been intentionally created.
If we are to believe that the universe had to have had some sort of primordial origin, of course that would exist, assuming everything we've known had a beginning. But just because something was made, does not mean it was intentionally made by some being. The Big Bang, for example, is one way things could've been kicked off, if science is to be believed. Would it have taken an all-powerful bearded man to spark those first hydrogen atoms? I don't think so, if you look at it as mere conditions that had to have been met, and their eventuality. Just as a dry summer forest just needs one spark to set off a massive conflagration, all it takes is one spark when the right conditions are met. And billions of years must have passed, in silence, until all outcomes played out and just the right one took place. From there, it's all a downhill chain reaction. Stars are made, waves of radiation burst forth from the center, unfathomably large rocks are chipped off until the planets and moons are formed. Hydrogen and oxygen merge to create the unique substance of water, giving way for carbon to form the first life from the primordial ooze of our planet. Evolution takes place from there, with things getting bigger and bigger or more diverse to compete. From there, life finds a way, all the way up to us in this present moment. We wonder where us, as well as all the beautiful and terrifying things we experience, could have possibly come from. And because we like to imagine away, wondering if we're truly alone and why everything fits into its own niche so well, we assumed this vast and complex existence had to have been carefully designed. The "guiding hand" of cause and effect was given a name, but also a face. And in that, you can say God exists, but not in the way traditional thinkers like to assume.