The wager states that the nature of God is unknowable. That is the first thing it makes a point of addressing. Pascal’s Pensees states:

“If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is….
…God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. ”

By that VERY SAME logic (God is unknowable) how can a theist of any stripe possibly know that their God is the right one? ‘God’ could be a god who rewards atheists for using their mortal sense of skepticism, after all.

The argument proves nothing to an atheist, since it validates ALL gods (even a God I make up in my head at this very moment…like the FSM) and NONE at the same time.

But this can be turned into the FSM too. E.g.: “I know there don’t seem to be any good arguments for him; but we were told to have faith. And I have total faith, in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Therefore, I am totally right; I have found God. Because I have faith.”

OK; I’ll bite. What IS the “immanent argument” that only “God” could be the transcendent force that created the universe?

Christianity does. But I am glad that we have established a common ground of theism since atheism does not stand the test of the arguments above.

The arguments are similar to those used by the Greek philosophers against their non-theistic counterparts, and could as easily be used to argue for Zeus (except for the moral element) or Allah (except for the rational part) or the FSM.

We could point out that the FSM does not fulfil the identity requirement of actual testimony, as the FSM is simply a construct produced by atheists a few years ago to mock theists, but nonetheless your arguments are generally sound.

Congratulations. In arguing for the FSM you have produced a more rational argument than any atheistic visitor to this blog. Pat yourself on the back.

1. Cosmological Argument: Also called the argument from universal causation or the argument from contingency, the cosmological argument is probably the most well know and well loved among theistic apologists. The basic argument is that all effects have an efficient cause. The universe and all that is in it, due to its contingent (dependent) nature, is an effect. Therefore, the universe has a cause. But that cause cannot be an effect or one would have to explain its cause. Therefore, there must be an ultimate cause, an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause that began the process. This cause must transcend time and space in order to transcend the law of cause and effect. This transcendent entity must be personal in order to willfully cause the effect. This ultimate cause is the FSM.

2. Teleological Argument: (Gr. telos, “end” or “purpose”) This is also know as the argument from design. This argument moves from complexity to a necessary explanatory cause for such complexity. The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of the cosmology, the voice of the FSM is heard. Therefore, the FSMs existence is the best explanation for such design. The FSM is the undesigned designer.

3. Moral Argument: This argument argues from the reality of moral laws to the existence of a necessary moral law giver. The idea here is that if there are moral laws (murder is wrong, selfishness is wrong, self-sacrifice is noble, torturing innocent babies for fun is evil), then there must be a transcendent explanation and justification for such laws. Otherwise, they are merely conventions that are not morally binding on anyone. Since there are moral laws, then there must be a moral law giver who transcends space and time. This moral law giver is the FSM.

4. sensus divinitatus (”sense of the divine”): While this argument goes by many names, the sensus divinitatus argues for the existence of the FSM from the innate sense of the divine that exists within all people. This sense of the divine, it can be argued, is the “FSM shaped void” within all people. This explains why people, societies, and cultures of all time have been, by nature, those who sense a need to worship something greater than themselves.

5. The Argument from Aesthetic Experience: This is the argument from universal beauty and pleasure. Beauty and pleasure are universally recognized as such. Even subjective variation in one’s definition of what is beautiful are not distinct enough to relativize this principle. From the beauty or the sunset over the Rockies to the pleasure of eating certain foods, there is a common aesthetic experience that transcends the individual. This transcendence must have a ultimate source. This ultimate source is the FSM.

6. Argument from the Existence of Arguments: The idea here is that there is no such thing as an argument without order and rationality. In the absence of the FSM, all that exists is chaos. Chaos does not give birth to order. Arguments assume order. Order assumes purpose and design which in turn requires a transcendent being for its genesis. To even argue against the existence of the FSM assumes his existence and is therefore self-referentially absurd. Therefore, there is no such thing as an “argument” against Transcendence (the FSM).

7. Argument from the Existence of Free-will Arguments: If there is no FSM, then all we have is a meaningless series of cause and effect stretching back into eternity. This series of cause and effects is necessary and determined, being the result of the previous cause and effect. As a billiard ball is hit by another and has no self-motivated movements of its own, so all of human existence exists under the same attributes. All things are determined, not self-motivated, including beliefs. Therefore, if someone does not believe in the FSM, it is not the result of self-motivated free-will beliefs, but because of a determined and fatalistic series of causes and effects stretching back into eternity. To argue against the existence of the FSM would not be the result of looking at the evidence and making a more reasoned decision to not believe in the FSM, but because that is what people were fatalistically determined to do. Therefore, all arguments are absurd and unjustified without the FSM.

8. Argument from the Existence of Evil: Like the moral argument, this argument assumes the existence of a universal characteristic that is meaningless without the FSM. Some argue that the existence of evil disproves the FSM (or at least a good FSM), but to argue such is formally absurd since one would have to have an ultimate and transcendent standard of good in order to define evil. If evil exists, goodness exists. If both exist, there must be a transcendent norm from which they get their meaning. Since evil does exist, the FSM exists.

10. Pascal’s Wager: Popularize by French philosopher Blaise Pascal, Pascal’s Wager argues that belief in the FSM is the most rational choice due to the consequences of being wrong. If one were to believe in the FSM and be wrong, there are no consequences. However, if one were to deny the FSM and be wrong, the consequences are eternally tragic. Therefore, the most rational choice, considering the absence of absolute certainty, is not agnosticism or atheism, but a belief in the FSM.

II. An argument not on the list comes from C.S. Lewis: only the existence of God can account for our sense of right and wrong. This isn’t a compelling argument when considered as a logical inference, but it has intuitive force.

III. Surprisingly perhaps, an argument not on the list, the Ontological Argument, probably gets the most attention from professional philosophers. The argument is that
1) if God exists at all his existence is necessary – meaning it is impossible for him not to exist. The intuition behind this is that it doesn’t seem to make sense to say, “God existed 50 years ago, but he doesn’t exist now – maybe he’ll reappear” or “God wonders if he’ll still be around a hundred years from now.” If God exists at all, his existence isn’t just a contingent fact, like the existence of a good ten-cent cigar. If God exists at all, he exists by necessity, meaning it is impossible for him not to exist. God is, by definition, a “necessary being”.
2) God’s existence is possible (or ‘conceivable’). We can imagine such a being.
3) But if God’s existence is possible – if we can conceive of a necessary being – he must exist. That is, if we can conceive of a being who by his nature must exist, then we can infer that such a being exists.
The above is roughly Descartes’ version and resemble’s St. Anselm’s “second version” – See Anselm’s “Proslogion” or Descartes’ Meditation 5. Descartes (I think therefore I am) is very readable – much more entertaining than St. Anselm- and he actually offers three proofs of God’s existence. The Meditations is short and can be found at most bookstores that carry academic books or classics.

Perhaps better known is St. Anselm’s ‘first’ version:
1) God is the greatest being that can be conceived.
2) A being that could be conceived not to exist would be less great than a being who could not be conceived not to exist.
3) So God cannot be conceived not to exist.
4) Therefore God exists.
This argument tends to strike people as a trick, but some people think the trick works. Most do not. The ’second version’ is considered an improvement by most. For a professional analysis of the argument see Alvin Plantinga’s works or if you are willing to tackle heavy duty philosophy complete with logical formulae see “Anselm and Actuality” by David Lewis in his Philosophical Papers vol 1. Lewis was a fascinating guy who believed every possible world actually exists. He taught at Princeton up until his death.