Roadmap

Ris3n Arguments

Intro

This page collects nine fresh arguments for the Christian God that I built from scratch. The recipe is the same in every one. Take two big areas of human knowledge (like physics, language, ethics, or storytelling) and notice they share the same hidden pattern. That match is hard to explain if the universe is just matter and chance. It makes sense, though, if a personal God designed everything with that pattern built in.

Think of two people in different cities humming the same song, in the same key, at the same speed, without ever meeting. Coincidence is possible. A common source is more believable. These arguments point at common sources, where the source is God.

The table further down names the two areas that line up in each argument, and the Christian doctrine that explains the line-up. None of these are borrowed from the standard apologetic canon (Aquinas, Kalam, the Moral Argument, the Fine-Tuning Argument). They are arguments I structured first in this codex, written in the same debate-prep format as the rest of the Arguments hub.

In full

Master index of novel apologetic arguments built in this codex, arguments that, to the maintainer's knowledge, have not been formalized as stand-alone named arguments in the published literature, even when their component domains are individually well-mapped.

What goes here

The New Arguments category collects convergence arguments: arguments that take two (or more) independently-established structural features, one from a "secular" domain (physics, mathematics, linguistics, cognitive science, phenomenology) and one from Christian theology, and show that their convergence is unlikely on naturalism but predicted by Christian theism. The shape is reliably:

Domain A has structural feature X.
Domain B has structural feature X (the same, not merely analogous).
The convergence is striking, not coincidence-explicable.
Naturalism has no resources to ground the convergence.
Christian theism, specifically, classical theism plus a load-bearing Christological / Trinitarian / imago Dei commitment, predicts the convergence.
Therefore, the convergence is evidence for Christian theism.

This category is distinct from Arguments only in lineage: every argument here is also a syllogism in debate-prep shape and is cross-linked into the master Arguments hub. The reason it has its own folder is that these arguments were built first as nexus-points by the codex maintainer (ris3n), they originate as proposed convergences rather than as inherited from the classical / contemporary natural-theology literature. They are an experimental tier of the cumulative case for Christian theism, and treating them as a discrete category keeps the "what is novel in this codex" question answerable.

How these arguments differ from classical natural theology

Classical natural theology (Aquinas's Five Ways, Kalam, Modal Ontological, Moral, Fine-Tuning) builds from a single domain, being, causation, value, intelligibility, to God.
Convergence arguments build from two domains' coincident structure to God. The argumentative weight comes from the cross-domain coincidence, not from the individual domain.
The closest published precursor is Alvin Plantinga's "Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments" (1986), which is a list of gestures, not formalizations. Most items on Plantinga's list have since been formalized by others; a handful have not, and convergence-shaped arguments belong to this latter group.
These arguments are also adjacent to Charles Taylor's ontology of moral / phenomenological "constants" that point past naturalism (cf. A Secular Age, 2007), but Taylor does not run them as theistic arguments.

The nine built (5 on 2026-05-11; #6 + #7 on 2026-05-15; #8 + #9 on 2026-05-16)

#	Argument	Domains converging	Theological anchor
1	Argument from the Observer-Demand Convergence	Quantum-measurement collapse + [[Argument from the Demand to Be Witnessed	witness-demand phenomenology]]
2	Argument from Twin Asymmetries	Thermodynamic time-asymmetry + moral forgiveness-asymmetry	Argument from the Resurrection + Cross run backwards on entropy and on the killers ([[Luke 23.34
3	Argument from Apophatic Convergence	Mathematical limit-paradox (Cantor / Russell / Burali-Forti) + classical apophatic theology	Trinitarian apophaticism; Cantor's own theological reading of the Absolute Infinite
4	Argument from the Pre-Given Logos	Chomsky "poverty of the stimulus" in linguistics + Johannine [[Logos Christology	Logos doctrine]]
5	Argument from the Question-Asking Asymmetry	Human-unique recursive question-generation + God's first post-Fall word is interrogative ([[Genesis 3.9	Gen 3:9]])
6	Argument from the Costly-Signal Convergence	Zahavi handicap principle in biological signaling (1975; Grafen 1990 formal validation) + kenotic-cross Christology ([[Philippians 2.6-11	Phil 2:6-11]]; Anselm; Damascene; Balthasar)
7	Argument from the Narrative-Identity Convergence	Paul Ricoeur's idem-vs-ipse narrative-identity philosophy (Oneself as Another 1990; Time and Narrative 1983-85) + Pauline resurrection-body theology ([[1 Corinthians 15.35-58	1 Cor 15:35-58]] transformed-but-continuous body; N.T. Wright's transphysicality)
8	Argument from the Hospitality-Stranger Convergence	Cross-cultural-universal hospitality-to-stranger ethics + Emmanuel Levinas's Face of the Other phenomenology (Totality and Infinity 1961; Otherwise than Being 1974) + Jacques Derrida's unconditional-hospitality (Of Hospitality 1997) + Christological-Stranger pattern (Emmaus [[Luke 24.13-35	Luke 24:13-35]]; locked-room [[John 20.19-29
9	Argument from the Information-Conservation Convergence	Fundamental-physics information conservation (no-cloning theorem Wootters-Zurek 1982; unitarity of QM; black-hole information paradox 1975 → Hawking 2004 Dublin concession; holographic principle 't Hooft 1993 / Susskind 1995; AdS/CFT Maldacena 1997) + Christian doctrine of resurrection-of-the-body + imago-Dei + divine-omniscience ([[Psalms 139	Ps 139]] + [[Hebrews 4.13

Pending nexus candidates

Future convergence-arguments to develop (proposed but not yet built):

Gift-Economy / Trinitarian Perichoresis Convergence, anthropological gift-economy (Mauss, The Gift, 1925) + intra-Trinitarian gift-giving (Augustine, Aquinas; perichoresis as eternal mutual self-giving). Adjacent to Argument from the Addressee of Gratitude.
Narrative-Identity / Resurrection-Body Convergence, Paul Ricoeur on narrative identity (Oneself as Another, 1990) + Paul's transformed but continuous resurrection body (1 Cor 15) as the only metaphysics in which the narrative self is preserved through death.
Information-Conservation / Imago Dei Convergence, black-hole information paradox in physics (Susskind, 't Hooft) + theological claim that persons are not destroyed in death. Riskier, physics is unsettled.
Beauty-Mathematics Convergence (extension), Wigner's "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" (1960) + theological aesthetics (von Balthasar) running through Argument from Beauty and Argument from Mathematical Truth to a single convergence.
Hospitality-Stranger / Christological Convergence, universal cross-cultural hospitality-to-stranger ethics (Levinas; cf. Heb 13:2) + Christ-as-Stranger / Christ-as-Guest pattern across the Gospels (Emmaus, the upper room).

When a nexus candidate becomes a built argument, promote it to the table above, write the page in debate-prep shape, and cross-link from the relevant existing hubs.

Working notes, what makes a convergence argument hold

Same structural feature, not merely analogous. "Both involve hierarchy" is analogy; "both require an observer to grant definiteness" is convergence. The argument's force depends on the structure being the same, not the metaphor being clever.
Each domain must stand on its own first. A convergence argument is only as strong as the weakest domain it draws on. If the quantum-measurement-needs-observer side is contested (it is) or the linguistic poverty-of-stimulus is contested (it is), the convergence inherits that contestation.
Naturalism's response is usually "coincidence", name and price the coincidence. Convergence arguments succeed by showing the conjunction-probability on naturalism is much lower than on theism, given the prior probability of each domain's structure. This is a Bayesian-shaped move (cf. Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2004), not a deductive one.
The theological anchor must be load-bearing, not decorative. If you can swap out "God" for "the impersonal Tao" and the argument still runs, the argument isn't really Christian, it's deistic. The convergence arguments here aim for the Christian-specific anchor: Imago Dei (humans as image of the God), Logos Christology (Word given before generated), the Cross-and-Resurrection (twin asymmetries broken at a single event), Trinitarian apophaticism (the Absolute is three persons exceeding apprehension).