𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐋 𝐀𝐑𝐆𝐔𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐆𝐎𝐃

𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝟏: If the property of rationality exists, then God must exist.
𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝟐: The property of rationality exists.
𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧: Therefore, God exists. 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝟏: 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

This argument came out of a conversation I had with an atheist who claimed the universe is necessarily rational. This to me seemed nonsensical… doesn’t rationality require a mind? Can something truly be rational if it wasn’t brought about by something that understands and exercises reason?

The more I thought about it, the more I realized this could form the basis of a new argument for the existence of God. It’s not just a variation on a familiar theme. It’s not a streamlined version of a classical argument or a sharpened take on an older form. It’s something deeper—something more foundational. It doesn’t begin with what we see. It begins with what must be true for rationality to exist at all.

This argument doesn’t infer God from design, order, or probability. It asserts that if rationality exists in any form, then God necessarily exists. Not because the world appears rational, but because rationality as a metaphysical property cannot arise without a rational foundation.

Some people might think this is the design argument, but that’s incorrect. The design argument is inductive—it’s an inference to the best explanation. It says the world looks designed, and that the best explanation for that appearance is a designer. This argument is not inductive and not based on appearance. It’s based on what rationality is, and what kind of cause is required for it to exist at all.

Nor is this argument about the laws of logic, intelligibility, or epistemology like many presentations of the transcendental argument (TAG).

And it’s not about whether our beliefs are reliable, like C.S. Lewis’s argument from reason.

It’s about the existence of rationality itself as a metaphysical property we find in minds and whose effects or reflections we see manifested in arguments, stories, laws, etc.

I believe this argument is new. At the very least, I’ve never seen it stated this way before.

Before we move into the syllogism and its parts, let’s define God for the purposes of this argument with precision:

God, as used in this argument, refers to a transcendent, necessary, and rational mind—the metaphysical foundation of all rationality. This being is personal (possessing will and intellect), perfectly consistent with logical truth, and cannot fail to exist (necessary).

In classical theology, this is the Logos—the divine reason behind all being. This is not a god of the gaps or an arbitrary preference, but the only kind of being capable of grounding the reality of rationality itself.

I’ll be presenting the Rational Argument for God in five parts:

𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝟏: 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝟐: 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐞
𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝟑: 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐨
𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝟒: 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧
𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝟓: 𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 & 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐬
𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝟔: 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐎𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬

A Note to the Reader:
Before we dive in, a quick note. I’ve shown this argument to both theists and atheists—at least eight different people so far—and no one has said they’ve seen it before. That includes people who are well-read in philosophy and apologetics. I’ve looked for similar arguments, and I haven’t found anything that frames the case this way either. Because of that, I’ve taken special care to make the reasoning below as clear and precise as possible.

But that also means this is not a short post. The argument takes time to build. It unfolds step by step. If you’re interested in exploring a new and hopefully rigorous proof for the existence of God, be prepared to spend about 40 minutes here reading this. It’s a slow burn—but I think it’s worth it.

Now… Let’s begin.

For over 2,000 years, skeptics have pointed to one argument as their strongest case against God.

It came from a Greek philosopher named Epicurus.

It’s called the Problem of Evil and it completely fails.

Here’s why 🧵

https://twitter.com/acctmontecristo/status/1915224034884592125

Epicurus asks:

1. If God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then He is not omnipotent.

2. If He is able but not willing, then He is malevolent.

3. If He is both able and willing, then why is there evil?

4. If He is neither able nor willing, then why call Him God?

Man used to climb a mountain to receive revelation from God.

Today’s high priests wear lab coats and deliver revelations from petri dishes.

We’re constantly told: “Trust the science.”

But what happens when science lies?

Let’s look at one of the biggest lies in history🧵 It’s called Piltdown Man.

For decades, textbooks and museums presented Piltdown Man as the missing link between apes and humans.

It was discovered in 1912 and used to support Darwin’s theory.

Today we’ve grown desensitized to the cross.

But in the ancient world, crucifixion was the most brutal, humiliating, and terrifying death imaginable.

If we forget how horrific the cross was, we forget how great Jesus’ sacrifice was.

Let’s remember why the cross was feared🧵 In ancient Rome, crucifixion wasn’t just execution.

It was a public horror.

Cicero said, “The very word ‘cross’ should be far removed not only from a Roman citizen’s body, but from his mind, eyes, ears.”

It was considered too vile to even talk about.

Many critics claim there’s no good reason to believe Jesus’ tomb was found empty.

That’s simply false.

Here are 𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐞 reasons to believe the tomb of Christ WAS empty🧵

https://twitter.com/logistrix/status/1912642435915657453

1. The burial of Christ is attested by multiple early, independent sources

Jesus’ burial is reported in all four Gospels, in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 15:4), and hinted at in Acts.

These are independent lines of testimony—not one person’s claim copied around.

Most people know C.S. Lewis as a brilliant Christian author and apologist.

Few know he was once a hardened atheist—a broken man shaped by war, loss, and deep skepticism.

This is how he became Christianity’s greatest modern defender🧵 Lewis was born in 1898 in Belfast, Ireland.

By the time he was 9, his mother died of cancer.

That loss shattered his childhood.
His father became emotionally distant.

He was sent away to strict boarding schools — and life began to feel cold and meaningless.

A former Christian has a challenge:

“Were there any historians who lived at the same time as Jesus and wrote about Him?”

Before we dive into quotes and sources, we need to call out the obvious:

This challenge is rigged🧵

https://twitter.com/leeherzog86/status/1910393087601631459

Why This is a Rigged Challenge

Jesus was:
• A poor, itinerant preacher.
• From a backwater town in Roman-occupied Judea.
• Not a king. Not a general. Not a Roman official.

During his life he’d have been just another man preaching to Jews, which was pretty common.

Historians in the ancient world didn’t follow random preachers around. They chronicled emperors, wars, political figures, and then, movements that grew from them.

Dostoevsky famously said, “If there is no God, then everything is permitted.”

For years as an atheist I couldn’t understand what he meant, but now I do…

Here’s a simple analogy that shows why only* theism can make sense of morality🧵 Imagine you just got hired at a company.

You show up, set up your desk, and decide to use two large monitors.

No big deal, right?

But then some random guy walks up to you and says: “Hey, you’re not allowed to do that.”

You ask, “What do you mean?”

They say, “You’re not permitted* to use monitors that big.”

In this situation the correct response would be: “Says who?”

We’ll now explore the different kinds of answers you might hear—each one representing a popular moral theory without God—and why none of them actually work.

Like most atheists, I thought atheism was inconsequential.

Until I asked: what would it mean if there’s no God?

What I found changed my life.

In his book The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg asks the same question.

Here’s what he says🧵 Chapter 1: The Physical Facts Fix All the Facts

Rosenberg argues that physics alone explains everything. If something isn’t reducible to physics, it isn’t real.

“All the other facts—psychological, social, moral, historical—depend on physical facts,” says Rosenberg.

Beliefs have consequences.

Some beliefs can destroy your life, your family, or even your civilization.

That’s why atheism carries a much higher burden of proof than Theism🧵 Why Atheism Has a Higher Burden of Proof Than Theism

𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

When it comes to the question of God, there are only two relevant metaphysical claims: either God exists, or God does not exist. For the sake of clarity, atheism will be defined here as the proposition that God does not exist. We are not using the “lack of belief” definition of atheism, which doesn’t make any metaphysical claim. The discussion here is about two mutually exclusive truth claims—either God exists, or He does not. Those are the only two relevant positions under consideration.

Now, to be very clear, this is not an argument that atheism is false simply because it is harmful. That would be an appeal to consequences, and that’s not what this is. What this argument says is that some beliefs, by their very nature, incur a much higher burden of proof than others because of the stakes involved. When a belief, if accepted, would be catastrophic or dangerous in its consequences, we are rationally justified in treating it as false by default unless it meets a very high evidential standard.

Let me illustrate this principle using three examples, and then we’ll apply it to the question of God’s existence.

If Jesus returned to our world and began performing miracles, how would we respond?

Would we worship Him?

Would we imprison Him?

Dostoevsky dares to ask this in his novel The Brothers Karamazov—and his answer is unforgettable… The story within the novel is called The Grand Inquisitor.

It’s one of the most profound stories you’ll ever read—a tale that will leave you questioning the nature of God, the nature of humanity, and who, if anyone, is truly right.

As an atheist, I believed evolution was obviously true.

But I no longer believe that naturalistic evolution explains the complexity of life.

And I’m not alone.

Over 1,200 Ph.D. scientists have signed a public statement expressing their skepticism of Darwinism.

Here are just a few reasons why: 1. Darwin Predicted No Irreducible Complexity

Darwin knew his theory couldn’t handle biological systems that require all parts to function.

Darwin’s Quote:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
(Origin of Species, Ch. 6)

In reality we’ve discovered many such systems:

• The bacterial flagellum
• The blood clotting cascade
• ATP synthase

These systems don’t function unless all parts are present and working together.

When a prediction fails, that’s a sure sign of a false theory.

In the Western world, we’ve rejected the supernatural.

Spirits and demons are seen as a primitive fiction.

But if that’s true, why do so many civilizations believe in this realm?

Why do the same patterns keep emerging throughout history?

For example… The Egyptians were firm believers in an alternate realm, worshipping a vast pantheon of gods.

Set brought chaos and murder.

Anubis ruled over the dead.

Ammit devoured souls.

Some men spend their entire lives trying to turn others away from God.

But in their final moments… what do they say?

Are they proud of the life they lived?

Are they ready to die?

Let’s look at the last words of some of history’s most well-known atheists & enemies of God… 1. Voltaire (1694–1778)

A brilliant writer and satirist, but a rabid critic of Christianity. He once said, “In twenty years Christianity will be no more.”

On his deathbed, his doctor urged him to renounce Satan. Voltaire reportedly replied:

“Now is not the time for making new enemies.”

But moments later, writhing in agony, he screamed:
“I am abandoned by God and man! I shall go to hell!”

If the Bible really came from God, is there a way we could know?

Absolutely. An all-knowing God could reveal himself through prophecy—foretelling events that later come to pass with perfect accuracy.

The Bible is filled with theses…

Here are 𝐓𝐄𝐍 fulfilled prophecies🧵 1. The Destruction of Tyre (Ezekiel 26:3-14)

Ezekiel prophesied Tyre would be destroyed and its remains thrown into the sea.

In 332 BC, Alexander the Great literally scraped the city’s ruins into the sea to build a causeway, fulfilling the prophecy.

As an atheist, I thought the Bible was just mythology—fairy tales

But when I earnestly examined the archaeological evidence, I found the exact opposite was true

Here are 𝟏𝟎 discoveries that confirm the Bible’s historical accuracy🧵 1. Tel Dan Inscription (House of David)

For years, historians thought King David was probably a mythical figure.

Then in 1993, archaeologists found the Tel Dan Inscription, a 9th-century BC stone mentioning the House of David.

The Bible was right all along….

Slavery used to be a normal part of society all over the world—everyone did it and no one questioned it.

Today, we see it as a horrific crime.

What changed? Christianity🧵 In the ancient world, slavery wasn’t just common—it was the norm.

Every major civilization practiced it:
• Egyptians
• Greeks
• Romans
• Chinese
• Arabs
• Africans
• Vikings

Some humans were just better than others. That’s how the world worked.

There is an ocean of evidence that the universe was designed

Yet atheist "scientists" refuse to accept reality

Here are the biggest problems that secular science can't explain (and what the obvious answers are)... 🧵 1. How did we get from chemistry to code?

We have amazingly complex code stored in our DNA

And no atheist has any idea for how we got from the pre-biotic soup to self replicating code in a living cell

But Christians know the answer...

𝐈𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲?
𝘼 𝘾𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙝𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙍𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝘼𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙨𝙩 𝙊𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨

Yesterday @logistrix complained that Christians weren’t providing evidence for Christianity.

In response, I provided him with a huge amount of evidence—twenty different lines of argument, each of which could fill an entire book.

He responded last night and I decided that over the next twenty days I would address his response—thoroughly. I think this is an important moment to reflect on how atheists argue, how they consistently fail to address what’s actually being said, and how they fundamentally misunderstand both the nature of evidence and the nature of the argument being made. Their skepticism isn’t grounded in a careful evaluation of the facts—instead it’s a childish attempt to deny reality the moment it doesn’t align with what they want to be true.

Before I begin my response, I need to explain what a cumulative case is and how it works.

To illustrate this, consider a murder case. A man’s wife is found strangled in their home, and while there’s no single piece of evidence that conclusively proves her husband killed her, but multiple lines of evidence all point in the same direction. We discover that he had taken out a life insurance policy on her just weeks before her death. She was strangled by someone with large, strong hands, and his hands match the size and strength of the marks on her neck. Security footage shows that he was the only person to enter the house at the time of the murder. While he was inside, neighbors reported hearing screams and sounds of a struggle. Then, after the time of death, the camera captured him leaving the house. Additionally, it turns out he was having an affair. Notice that none of these facts, taken in isolation, prove he’s the murderer. However, when we look at all of these facts together*, the best explanation for all of them is that he is the murderer. This is an example of a “cumulative case.”

Now, imagine that instead of addressing the overall weight of the evidence, someone tried to dismiss each point in isolation. “Just because he was in the house doesn’t mean he killed her” (correct, but it proves he could have). “Just because neighbors heard screams doesn’t mean he was the one causing them” (correct, but given that he and his wife were the only ones inside the house at that time, we should conclude the screams were caused by their altercation). “Just because he had a life insurance policy doesn’t mean he wanted her dead” (correct, but it establishes a potential motive). “Just because his hands match the strangulation marks doesn’t mean HE necessarily strangled her” (correct, but the hand size and strength points to him).

What I just illustrated above is exactly what virtually all atheists do when confronted with the cumulative case for Christianity. They look at each piece of evidence in isolation and argue that, on its own, it doesn’t prove Christianity. But that isn’t the point of each individual piece of evidence. The point is that when all of these different* lines of evidence are considered together, they form a powerful case that Christianity is true.

Over the next 20 days, I will demonstrate this as I respond to Logistrix one day and one section at a time. I’m going to go through his responses and show exactly what he’s doing—all his pointless nitpicks, how he ignorantly dismisses individual pieces of evidence without cause, and how he never addresses the cumulative strength of the overall case.

I’m not doing this for him. He’s an atheist—they don’t care about evidence. Instead, I’m doing this to expose these common atheist tactics so that we can all see what’s really happening beneath the surface.

This is going to be a LOT to read, but if you do read it, you’ll realize how strong the case for Christianity truly is and how little substance atheists have in response. Are you ready?

Let’s begin… 𝐃𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐓𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐬 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲?
𝑹𝒆𝒇𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒔𝒕 𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒎𝒑𝒕𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔 𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝑪𝒉𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒚

Part One: 1/4

**My Initial Claim**

𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞:
1. Existence of Jesus: Multiple sources outside the Bible reference Jesus, including Roman historians (Tacitus, Suetonius), Jewish historians (Josephus), and other ancient writers (Pliny the Younger).

••••Logistrix’s Response••••

Tacitus
Wrote in 116CE, nearly a century after Jesus’ death. He doesn’t actually mention Jesus by name, but does refer to Christians and refers to “Christ” as the origin of their name. He also mentions the method and approximate date of Jesus’ death.
This can be used to show that Jesus the man lived and was Crucified. But does nothing to show that any of the supernatural claims of or about Jesus are true.

**my response**

If we were trying to prove that Julius Caesar did, in fact, cross the Rubicon, a necessary first step would be proving that Julius Caesar existed at all. One way to do that would be to cite sources that confirm key aspects of his life—such as his military leadership and political actions. While those sources may not explicitly mention the Rubicon crossing, they still provide crucial support for the broader historical claim.

In the same way, one of the foundational claims of Christianity is that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. If Jesus never existed, and if there was no crucifixion, then Christianity is false—end of story. The evidence from Tacitus corroborates at least this key part of the story, and that’s precisely what it’s meant to do. Just as the camera showing the man entering his house is ONLY meant to establish that he was there at the correct time and therefore could have committed the murder, the evidence from Tacitus is only meant to establish key parts of Jesus’ story.

But instead of engaging with this, Logistrix moved the goalpost. He admitted that Tacitus confirms Jesus’ existence and crucifixion, but then argued that it doesn’t prove any supernatural claims. That’s irrelevant because that wasn’t the point of citing Tacitus in the first place. Recall how I said in my introduction to this thread that the atheist will evaluate each individual piece of evidence as if it alone should prove the entire case? That’s exactly what just happened here.

Even worse, he made a completely disingenuous point about Tacitus not mentioning Jesus by name. Tacitus explicitly refers to Christus, the leader of the Christians, saying:

“Christus, from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”(Annals 15.44)

This is an unmistakable reference to Jesus Christ. The fact that Tacitus uses Christ instead of Jesus is completely irrelevant—just like if someone referred to me as ‘the husband of @femturnedwife instead of “Darwin to Jesus.” This would still obviously mean me.

Conclusion:
Tacitus is direct historical evidence that Jesus existed and was crucified. Logistrix’s argument about Tacitus not saying “Jesus” by name is pure nitpicking and completely irrelevant. He also misrepresented my argument by acting as if I were using Tacitus to prove the supernatural, which was never my claim. His response is worthless—he hasn’t refuted anything. He’s just dodged the argument, misrepresented my point, and fixated on a meaningless detail. The fact remains: Tacitus is external, non-Christian evidence confirming a core claim of Christianity. That’s evidence.

How can a perfectly good, all-powerful God… allow evil?

This question was famously raised by Epicurus, and skeptics have been asking it ever since.

The only issue? Christian theologians debunked it over a thousand years ago.

Here’s how🧵 If you look at the image below, you’ll see where I circled, “Then why is there evil?”

The chart presents only two possible answers to this question:

1. Evil exists to test us.
2. Evil exists because of Satan.

But this is a false dichotomy—it assumes that these are the only two reasons God could allow evil, ignoring a crucial third option:

Free will.

E = mc²
F = ma
E = hf

These simple equations describe energy, motion, and space.

But here’s the weird part: the universe doesn’t have to be this way.

It’s almost as if something—or someone—wanted it to be this way…

Here’s why 🧵 Imagine you set off on an adventure to discover a new, uncharted island.

On your way, you pick up a fictional book about an imaginary island.

But when you arrive, something strange happens. You realize the book isn’t fiction at all—it’s describing your island.