I believe there should be an Anthropological Argument. The fact that almost every culture, no matter how remote, has had some belief in supernatural being(s) with supernatural powers, is the most compelling argument I find.

"Is it possible to grasp, fully, the idea of God as Christian revelation, theology, and devotion understand him, and not believe in him? I’ve begun to suspect that it is not."

This is something like the argument D.B. Hart puts forward in The Experience of God, although he doesn't limit it to Christianity, but draws from all theisms. In that sense it's also anthropological, since it incorporates elements of what all believing people have tended to hold in common. Ditto Scruton's The Face of God, although it's more "personalist" in its approach.

Though now that I think about it, yeah, Hart does say something like that.

So surprised to see my earlier post here. I was looking for additional info re: the term and hadn't remembered seeing anything previosly. If I'm not mistaken I believe I picked it up from Fritjof Capra's conversation with The Gregory in his book Uncommon Wisdom. I intended on using the term in a hypothesis I've been working on and off on for last 25 yrs. Which I was planning to call The Grand Metaphysical Theory of Poker

As an avid Poker player for the last 40 yrs. I have observed some rather strange phenomena in re: bad beat scenarios which are so uncanny as to defy all logic and reason. Which seem to be intimately assoc. with an old aphoristic expression that "the poker god protects drunks beginners and all in hands.

Synergy being the common bond here, has been described as being The Universal Constructive Principle of Nature in Science and The Divine Principle of Cooperation in Theology; particularly with respects to the Christian Soteriological Doctrine of Synergism. The attic greek root synergos meaning working together, is also related to the fact that Christianity is a syncretic system of beliefs.

Martin Luther and Protestantism as a whole assert(s) that The Bible with the aid of The Holy Spirit can be understood by any reader or hearer w/o any specialized instruction or training. Which was the oppositional response to The Catholic Church's move towards Rationalism.
As a Protestant myself,I find the assertion to be completely absurd, as that would negate the necessity for such things as Biblical Scholars, and Exegetical Theologians, and such.

Synergy is all about the tendency of certain things to take on an existence that is greater than the sum total of their equal, separate. and different parts. If you "follow the white rabbit" and do your due diligence by doing all the requisite research and study on everything I mention here, it will all become both obvious and apparent. Most of which is all relative to this thing we call the law of opposites. which all about the both, the poverty of the spirit (to quote MLK in his "I Have a Dream" speech) and the lack of inquiring minds within our species.

the fact that nobody ever really tho't about reading the dictionary means that everybody has their own definition of everything. it's all in the book. fact is every sentient being has their own separate reality contained within. you can find that fact too, by reading the right stuff. reading is fundamental. (to many equations). literature, along with art, history, and the humanities is essential to understanding. study psychology and you'll all about everyone's cognitive biases. study sociology and learn all about cultural influences and affects. study Transpersonal Psychology and you'll be able to figure out how all those really dedicated people who lived hundreds and hundreds and even thousands upon thousands of years ago could be so smarter and wiser than people today. it's all about doing things for the right reasons (intentionality).

there are actually several (phenomenological) philosophical schools of thought that have long since been stressing the importance of adding the correct human feelings into any and every equation. I like Rudolf Steiner's best. Synergetics is a good one too. I just recently came upon Herman Lotze in my journey's. He might have actually figured it all out for us.

The road to hell is paved with many good intentions. Holism got it right. It takes all parts to make a whole, means that you can't have one without the other, and that no part is any more nor any less significant than the other, as well. People keep choosing sides and squaring off against each other instead of coming together and exchanging ideas. Eclecticism goes by the maxim; choosing the best; and is actually defined as: a conceptual approach that does not hold rigidly to a single paradigm, but draws instead from multiple theories, concepts, priciples, and ideas. And that's where I took my cue from.

oops, add rewards there between external and like. Part of my hypothesis deals the concept of nous; Greek for the human intellect, but also more importantly for the ability to actually recognize the truth when you see it, or the ability to be able pick out what little truth there might be in something. Which is really important since there is a little bit of truth in everything. I think I have that. I noticed it when I was studying the dictionary for all those years. Certain concepts just kind of jumped out at me. Jumped right off the page, if you will. It was the impetus for all my studies. I thought, you know what, I bet I could figure out what's wrong with this picture. And so I began searching for the answers.

I need to apologize for all the omissions I've made here today. I've typed out some really good stuff previously that I really took my time with and proofread and all that, but then when I hit "post" I got a message that said that the time had expired. So I'm feeling kinda' rushed as if I'm up against a deadline or something. So please forgive me for being such a dingleberry. I'm also working mostly from memory. I have several years worth of notes from all the research I've done, but the nature of the internet with all the various different link-ups etc. is such that my notes are all over the map, so to speak. And given that I'm working against the clock, I don't really have enough time to go through them all in order to be as thorough as I should be. The interconnected web of interrelated concepts that I'm working with can also come across as if I'm just throwing a lot of nonsequiturs together if I'm not careful.

the author of this website began by stating for one; that he did not find St. Anselm's Ontological Argument for The Existence of God to be all that compelling. (a position that I happen to agree with) and he also stated for another that there were other Ontological Arguments for The Existence of God, as well. Which is true (and the most well-known of which being that of Thomas Aquinas, also known as St. Thomas)

I've studied the first (3) and didn't really like any of them, which is why I stated in my original post here that I thought there should be an Anthropological Argument based on the fact that anthropological studies have concluded that almost every civilization that has ever existed, no matter how remote and cut-off from the rest of the world, all had a belief in some form of god(s). Which to me seems far more convincing.

Rather than being designed for the purpose of trying to attract more people to the faith.