Evidence for God, or Instead Maybe an Argument From Ignorance, or Other?

[POI]

The Tanager was recently asked by me: "what keeps you remaining in this belief?" For which, one of his responses was "the intelligibility of reality".

I admit I have not looked much into this topic..... Inquiring minds want to know.

For debate:

1) In the context for believing in the Christian God, what exactly IS "the intelligibility of reality" and why would it lead one towards the belief in the Christian God? Or maybe, this belief only leads one towards deism/theism, and other more specific topics leads one to Christianity?

2) How possible is it, on a percentage scale, that this topic is an argument from ignorance (1%, 10%, 50%, other)? And why?

**************************

The argument from ignorance is defined here as "the assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

[TRANSPONDER]

I may have mentioned that there are two different 'God' debates. The Cosmic Mind one and the Bible God one. While Theists generally have the Creationist creed "We believe this Creator is the God of the Bible" in mind, there is nothing to say which god this Cosmic mind is or which religion (if any) it represents. Which is why Cosmic origin debates like Kalam or ontological arguments are really amusingly pointless but those God - apologists who do them cannot think outside the Faith - box and assume 'Of Course it is the God of the Bible ..no question', And Allah is not even in the equation.

So even while the "Agnostics" battle us furiously about 'who made everything, then?' because, having had to give up religion, Cosmic Mind -god is all their theism has left to invest personal cred Faith in, for the atheist, it doesn't even matter because even proving a Cosmic Mind sortagod doesn't validate any one religion, and the only reason we debate it is because conceding a god would make them think they have proved the Bible, Jesus and Christianity. One cannot concede an inch or they think they have won the whole blasted territory.

So, Ultimate Reality debates, like the solipsistic universe or brain in a vat falls into the 'irrelevant' category, because it does not tell us 'which god' or religion is the 'Right'one.

Now I don't recall what 'Intelligibility of Reality' is even arguing, whether it is one of those Kalamitous arguments or is 'design/universal constants' argument. But none of them get us to a particular god or religion, so I don't much care.