Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[Mister Agenda]

Your reply seems to have no relationship whatsoever to my question.

All arguments from God don't prove things from purely abstract, but from what we observe in the signs in ourselves, and in things we acknowledge.

In fact, your phrase "argument alone" is confusing the issue of what arguments are. Arguments make use of facts we know.

For example the argument of ultimate value and the signs in ourselves, makes use that we see ourselves to have inherent objective value even if we aren't sure of what that is and what our measurement is.

I went into elaboration.

You show one argument for God that doesn't make use of observations or facts we know.

If the word 'evidence' that's giving you trouble, evidences are facts that inferentially support or undermine a proposition. Evidence is used in an inferential argument, not a deductive one, and is probabilistic, never necessarily true.

Bob is dead.
Bob was killed with a weapon that made a particular type of a wound.
I have a weapon that would make a wound like that.
I am more likely to have killed Bob than someone without a weapon like that.

As you can see, that's slim pickings to hang someone on. That's why it almost always takes multiple lines of evidence to reach near certainty, although inferring from evidence can never take us to absolute certainty. That's reserved for deductive arguments, when we accept the premises are true and the conclusion is properly arrived at (non-fallacious).