Atheists, what are the most convincing theist arguments you heard of?

[SuperSentient]

I am sure you have heard some arguments for theism, maybe theists are convinced that they fulfill a burden of proof. 

Despite the problems these arguments may have, which one stands out the most to you?

I commonly hear atheists claim that the teleological argument, as terrible as it may be, is the most convincing of all theist arguments.

I personally think the Kalam Cosmological Argument is the #1.

Certainly not any of the first mover arguments.  The problem being that the immediate question, is then what caused the first mover?  Reformulating everything that exists must have a cause as everything that begins to exist must have a cause does not help as it begs the question by creating the category of things which have always existed occupied only by the thing to be proved, thus assuming god in its proof of god.  Furthermore,  even if the first mover arguments managed to prove a first mover, that would not prove the existence of a being anything like the one theists like to imagine as God.  Such a being might not not even be sentient let alone all powerful, interested in people, or still existing in order to either have always existed or to be a first mover.

I can say that the first mover had no cause (never began to exist). This argument doesn't assume god at all and doesn't beg the question. Part of the KCA is to deduce characteristics by logical analysis of the properties of this cause, so the argument demonstrates this first cause is uncaused, personal creator, beginningless (eternal), timeless, spaceless, changeless (immutable), immaterial, and powerful. 

There is also a problem with the premise that everything that begins to exist must have a cause.  That is that with the possible exception of subatomic particals, we've never seen matter or energy come into existence, we've only seen matter and energy change form.  A baby for example begins to exist as anot organized collection of matter, but the baby is formed of preexisting matter, so too everything else we see.  So we have no reason to assume that the existence of matter or energy requires a cause only the current form matter and energy.

This is true and is a working objection, matter and energy would have began to exist in the beginning of the universe, so to say that whatever comes into existence requires some external cause of some kind is to say a lot. We don't even know if the universe began to exist, which is why I sometimes hesitate to talk about the big bang as the beginning of all existence. 

The teliological argument is better only in that it at least attempts to use empirical evidence, and does not attempt to define god into existence.  However, as people readily see the difference between designed objects made by people, and some animals like birds or beavers and natural objects like trees for the simple reason that they do not appear designed greatly undercuts the premise.  That evolution describes how a tree might have evolved is a further, but not necessary blow to the teliological argument. Essentially it is an argument from ignorance, and a showing of ignorance does not overcome that essential hurdle.

Its basis is faulty, but I wouldn't say that concluding design from observation is inherently ignorant as opposed to random natural processes. It is just another explanation. It may be simpler to state that life is designed as opposed to explaining random natural processes, but accepting an explanation over another simply because it is more complicated to explain would be a fallacy. Also, design need not be from God, in fact, that may be a farfechted conclusion even if we are to suppose that certain features of the universe are designed.

Anecdotal stories are the closest thing there is to proof of god.  But they fall far short of what would be required to demonstrate god by any definition of god espoused by theists.

You mean the argument from miracles?

---

IMO, the most convincing arguments, or rather, least unconvincing, have come from deists who don't claim specific knowledge of any specific God. If God were, or is real, I don't believe ANY human could possibly know the first thing about Him/Her/It/....or whatever.

Deists generally don't believe they stand to gain a goddamned thing as result of their beliefs, so, I view their 'arguments' as slightly more compelling than the average theist's; if for no other reason, then the fact that there typically isn't any raw need, fear, warm fuzzies, or wishful think attached. 'Cause let's face it: You've just gotta consider motivation.

Particularly, in absence of indisputable FACTS.

Are you saying that the identity (as a deist or religious person) of the person impacts the strength of their arguments or that the deist god (as different as it may be from all the other religions) is more supported by what we know than the religious gods?