Best Theistic Arguments

[Mister Agenda]

Without some sort of abiogenesis, life never began. Yet we have life.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I am going to debate a theist over the existence of god soon. What are the best arguments you ever heard from theists? Any tips on what topic to avoid in such an discussion? 
Thanks in advance

Their arguments normally consist of.
"without god how do you explain.." morals, matter, the universe, justice, laws of physics, beauty love or some other such thing.

And the atheist position is usually "it just is". It really boils down to the the Principle of Sufficient Reason. If you're going to debate a generic "theist" then you need sufficient reason to dismiss sufficient reason :-)

That said, a basic principle of debating is to fully understand the arguments of your opponent to the point of being able to defend them yourself. If you're asking the question then you probably are not prepared for a debate.

Making the positive case that 'god' -as if you or anyone else knew what this word refers to- does not exist, will just allow them to turn all your best points agains you.  Much better to stick to insisting that terms be defined and then challenge the legitimacy of the supernatural.  If not even one noncontroversial exemplar of anything supernatural can be produced, then that set can safely be assumed to be empty.

So basically, your advice is to play semantic games and argue over the meaning of words. That sounds more like sophistry than reasoned debate. It is the attempt to shift the debate away from the question of "that something is" to "what something is". It is a dishonest tactic. There is nothing of which anyone has complete knowledge. We are constantly learning and that is every bit true in theology as it is the natural sciences and mathematics.

[The Valkyrie]

"You're taking it out of context!!!"

[The Grand Nudger]

The term for a "generic theist" is a deist, Neo..and there's no need to dismiss sufficient reason in order to debate a damned thing with them.  

Atheists don;t believe in -gods-....how many fucking times do you need to be told this, honestly?  Any given atheist is free to assert reasons, causes, and grounds..from here unto eternity.

[Simon Moon]

I am going to debate a theist over the existence of god soon. What are the best arguments you ever heard from theists? Any tips on what topic to avoid in such an discussion? 
Thanks in advance

None of the arguments used by theists hold up to scrutiny, they are all fallacious.

Kalam CA, at first blush, seems like a decent argument, but just a bit of evaluation, finds the fallacies.

The ontological argument, teleological argument, TAG are also massively fallacious, but they can be a bit difficult to dissect.

Don't get into arguing details of whatever holy book they follow. That puts you on their home field. Make sure they understand that their holy book is NOT evidence for their claim, it IS the claim.

I would recommend watching a bunch of Matt Dillahunty's debates and vids on YouTube.

A break down on refutations of various theistic arguments can be found on:

https://rationalwiki.org/

[Whateverist]

Making the positive case that 'god' -as if you or anyone else knew what this word refers to- does not exist, will just allow them to turn all your best points agains you.  Much better to stick to insisting that terms be defined and then challenge the legitimacy of the supernatural.  If not even one noncontroversial exemplar of anything supernatural can be produced, then that set can safely be assumed to be empty.

So basically, your advice is to play semantic games and argue over the meaning of words. That sounds more like sophistry than reasoned debate. It is the attempt to shift the debate away from the question of "that something is" to "what something is". It is a dishonest tactic. There is nothing of which anyone has complete knowledge. We are constantly learning and that is every bit true in theology as it is the natural sciences and mathematics.

It may seem so from your current point of view. But expecting someone to defend the position that the special something you have in mind but can't produce does not exist, is pretty presumptuous. I don't care if your figment exists or doesn't exist. As you know I have a perfectly natural explanation to satisfy myself I know what it is that you and gazillions of others before you are on about. The possibility that the explanation involves something from the supernatural zone, to my sensibility, is laughable. But you go ahead and pat yourself on the back about the sincerity you are eager to bring to the debate you so want to have. I simply am not interested in discussing literal gods.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Atheists don;t believe in -gods-....how many fucking times do you need to be told this, honestly? 

Not all atheists agree with the 'lack of belief' canard, so why should I?

[downbeatplumb]

Their arguments normally consist of.
"without god how do you explain.." morals, matter, the universe, justice, laws of physics, beauty love or some other such thing.

And the atheist position is usually "it just is". It really boils down to the the Principle of Sufficient Reason. If you're going to debate a generic "theist" then you need sufficient reason to dismiss sufficient reason :-)

That said, a basic principle of debating is to fully understand the arguments of your opponent to the point of being able to defend them yourself. If you're asking the question then you probably are not prepared for a debate.

But theists never say HOW god is supposed to be responsible for anything, it just "IS".
There is often a scientific answer or at least viable idea that explains the thing they propose is god, but to the theist just wants to believe.

[The Grand Nudger]

Atheists don;t believe in -gods-....how many fucking times do you need to be told this, honestly? 

Not all atheists agree with the 'lack of belief' canard, so why should I?

Bob Saget!

[The Valkyrie]

Atheists don;t believe in -gods-....how many fucking times do you need to be told this, honestly? 

Not all atheists agree with the 'lack of belief' canard, so why should I?

Not all Christians believe in worshipping their god the same way. They even disagree on parts of their holy book.

So, why should we accept their beliefs until they all agree?