Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[tackattack]

Our human intuition is subjective and infallible and very much guided by our presuppositions. This is not proof for the existence of god in any way, and to accept the standard of intuition as evidence then you must also accept any claims based on the intuition of others.

The Geometrical analogy is also fundamentally flawed as it can be demonstrated as true mathematically to support the intuition, whereas there is no such way to demonstrate that your intuition about God is true. Human intuition has failed us numerous times in the past, from the Sun orbiting the earth to the flat earth theory and beyond, our intuition is in no way a measure of truth, rather an estimate based on our presuppositions that needs to be objectively verified to have any credence.

1.I emphatically agree that intuition is completely subjective and personally infallible. However that statement is incongruous with the following statements so perhaps you should check your definition and reassert.
2.How is demonstratability in proofs a fundamental flaw? While scientific, mathmatical or historical demonstratability is best used in its' according fields; I propose you use spiritual demonstratability to test spiritual truths.
3.Your assertion that intuition has failed us is flawed in that more correctly is is actions based on beliefs that have failed us. Theese beliefs can be partly because of intuition, but I highly suspect that few people act on intuition alone, and that is is the lesser of the parts of action.

Would you like to explain how that is in any way evidence for the existence of god?

Sure. I was referring to the strength of conviction of man's inate sense of God in the assertion that most religious texts presupose their respective God/Gods and to not attempt to prove them.

1) Whether you personally believe the universe is eternal or not is not relevant, if you want to use it as an argument you must prove it first.

2) Causality is not proof of god, just proof of mechanism so suggesting that because the parts of the universe influence each other there must be a god is illogical.

3) The universe not being eternal is not relevant - the matter and energy that make up the universe cannot be created nor destroyed as stated by the thermodynamic law for the conservation of energy , whether it be in the form of a singularity or a vast empty universe plagues by entropy does not matter.

1. Isn't the Big Bang theory one of the most provable and most widely accepted scientific theories? If something had a begining and a history, then it by definition is finite, not infinite.
2. proof of universal or anthropic mechanism doesn't explain the human mind. On a universal scale though it does indicate that the laws of nature do apply to the universe and that it all works in a predescribed fasion. I know of no known self-sustaining machine in this universe. Why would I assume that the sum of it's parts are different from it's whole? Thusly I'm inclined to believe that mechanism implies design as does the nature of laws implies a law-giver.

1)That is an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

2)Nature does the selection... through survival of the fittest, hence the name. The fact that you even had to ask the most basic question of natural selection suggests your knowledge of the theory is entirely inadequate to be using it as a serious argument anyway.

1. Yes it was I will reassert. When you see a watch you instinctively assume that it had a designer. When I see the complex developement of Granodiorite in Yosemite. The more science has found out about the complexity of the universe the less it appears random causality.
2. If there is a requirement for certain degrees I must have before a discussion please list them and I will kindly bow out. If you feel I am underqualified to even mention certain subjects please list them. However I believe it is called Ad Hominem.
3. Natural selection is subjective if selective pressure can be produced by any aspect of the environment including human nature and choice. Therefore it is not a complete arguement. When human choice is applied to selective evolution, and is based off intuition or predisposition, it logically leads to likened developement. I subconsciously must want me kids to be like me because they've learned how to "be" by observation. We are constantly evolving into more effecient and "usefull" beings. Ergo, we've learned how to "be" by imitating not nature but an idealistic and external existance that is greater than us.

Absolute nonsense, this is the weakest single argument i have ever seen for the existence of God. The fact that man can conceive of the infinite means nothing, whether this infinite thing be God or a number series.

It is not proof of God's existance but proof of what god is if he does exists. If evidence is cummulative this applies.

There is no proof there what-so-ever, just you asserting that morals require external authority, a completely unproven assumption in it's self.

Do you deny there is a moral law to society throughout history and today? Explain to me then how right and wrong are self-imposed or completely developed from natural instincts please. I

What makes more sense to an individual is not in any way a reflection of what is true. Of course God makes it easy to explain everything, it is a literal blank Cheque you have given yourself, but just because you have a theory of everything still does not make it true.

Nor do I indeed state that I know what is the truth of the true God. I have an idea of God and it is backed by percievable evidence and they are congruent and that fascillitates belief of existance.

What these discussions time after time show is that christianity claims definite answers with unsound reasoning and competes for it with science. If NOMA applies then why should christianity bother with the origin of the physical universe at all? Right, cause NOMA isn't accepted by christianity either. Christianity claims that the border between the supernatural and the natural world is somehow magically tresspassed. Accordingly, and most conveniently for christians, it is trespassed right at the borders of scientific understanding right now: in our brains and as the cause of the big bang.

Science, not religious dogma, showed us that the earth is not flat.
Science, not religious claims, showed us that the earth is not in the center of the world and that with the heliocentric model, the orbits of the planets could be predicted very accurately.
Science, not religious magic, has shown that our sun is nothing but a star in a vast ocean of stars.
Science, not holy scripture, has shown that the 'bang' of the big bang can still be heard as 3K cosmical background radiation.
Science, not religious prayer, has shown that time and space are intertwined and that there is more to causation and detemination than a simple 'god did it'.
Science, not religious fortune cookies, has shown that the big bang took place 13.7 billions years ago.
Science, not religious healing sessions, has brought us deep insights in the working of the human body, medical treatment and some understanding of the human brain and mind.

I didn't know science and religion were so diametricaly opposed.

Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth. The Jerusalem Talmud says that Alexander of Macedon was lifted by birds to the point that he saw the curvature of the earth. This story is mentioned as well by the Tosafos commentary on the Babylonian Talmud. This is used to explain why a statue of a person holding a sphere in his hand is assumed to be an idol. The sphere being held in its hand symbolizing the idol's purported dominion over the world whose shape is a sphere. (ref) I don't see how Early Christianty did anything but help procreate the correct scientific opinion in this instance. Please extrapolate your point. Thank you.
.

-Dave