Here is why you should believe in God.

[R00tKiT]

It's not off topic, as you said God and then described something which does not necessitate nor even imply the existence of God as any religious tradition describes it.

I didn't intend for my post to be a formal proof of God, as atheists usually request it to be like. My point is that their very request is absurd, as they betray their excessive skepticism when pressed in situations requiring reasonable explanations and not pages of rigorous case by case analysis, as in the "burglar breaking their window and stealing their money" analogy.

The second point is that they make a very elementary categorical mistake. The typical atheist thinks scientific explanations of various processes are all one needs to account for to have complete knowledge of reality. This is a laughable assertion. It doesn't even work with someone eating his food. Explaining cooking recipes and the complex mechanical movements of his jaw is by no means substitute for the explanation "John ate his food".

Once one gets rid of these two very absurd preconceptions, it becomes straightforward to believe in a supernatural force that account sfor every aspect of design around crying for a deeper explanation than the simple "we figured it out".

My bold - Citation please? I consider myself to be at least relatively well read - I wonder how come I don't remember hearing an explanation for why God allows cot deaths, paedophilia etc etc etc...PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME/US!!!

I am not going to claim I know more than you already do. But from what I read about the subject, theodicy is more concerned with addressing the problem of evil as a whole, not in some specific examples. Just because we're emotional about death doesn't mean it's inherently "immoral" or "wrong" or unworthy of a deity, these are all baseless conclusions we jump to because we're emotional creatures.

Again, one can only hold a deity accountable for free will, not its consequences, since they're the product of the individual's choice by definition.

1. I think I already addressed this gross misunderstanding in a previous dicussion. a god was always there, there was never any nothing he came out from. So no, there is no special pleading.

2. a 747 is much more than Aluminum. You are strawmaning my axiom. If we take all the components with their needed quantities as in a 747, they clearly have the potential as a whole to actually become a 747, and even more, provided we have really clever aliens way brighter than every Airbus engineer. And a 747 is only a label given by humans, it could be as useless as a single Carbon atom to some aliens. Human beings are made of  (organic chemistry+ the entire set of chemical/physical laws and convenient environment throughout aeons of time to make the evolutionary processes operate as "precisely" as they did). If you think about a little bit more carefully, what could be done with this set of conditions through thousands of centuries is only bounded by your imagination.

3. It actually depends on what you mean by infinity, a very tricky concept in its own right. Under certain definitions of the latter, infinite regress is clearly impossible. If we mean by infinite regress a successive causal chain of events, say ... => A => B => C => our universe => stuff => ... then clearly our universe shouldn't have been here since it's preceded by an infinite amount of events, and since the latter never ends, by definition, the universe never comes into being.

Do you have any other reasons?  Arguing over factual corrections to your axioms is pointless.  You're free to take them as axioms and insist that they're true regardless of whether or not they are.

I suggest you start taking the mistakes you make seriously. You tend to avoid discussing the details precisely when you get them wrong. It's a big problem that you're accusing me of special pleading when there is none. A big, huge problem you can't solve by circling around, as you do here.

So I am going to state my - very important - factual corrections again :

1) There is no special pleading when one appeals to the "something can't come from nothing" tautology to argue for a first cause. It's a disaster that your misunderstanding of a tautology lead you to accuse me of special pleading.

2) "Something can't give what it doesn't have" is actually true in your 747 example. Since the label "something" also includes the whole manufacturing process and the exact quantity of material needed to build a 747 from scratch. 

3) Infinite regress of causes is impossible under most definitions of infinity.

Until I hear some good objections to what's above, they're forcibly true in your worldview as well.

If you took those thing to be true axioms..sure, you could probably force a god - just like you could force absolutely any claim whatsoever by any set of axioms in the same manner.  

You've freed yourself from a commitment to facts all the way down to an axiomatic level - the sky is the limit, lol!

The set of axioms I'm appealing to is the exact one you appeal to in every situation in your life, except for god. Do you have any objection you want to say to "something can't come from nothing" ? really..? Don't we have at least this very basic principle in common?
It's laughable that you're now taking refuge in some "commitment to facts", since, obviously, the axiomatic level doesn't seem to be on your side at all. If you were, by any means, committed to facts, you would've thought the same way about the whole universe as you do when your money is stolen and your windows glasses smashed, that is, when you're pressed in more serious situations than that of calmly arguing god off existence when sitting on your sofa. The "whole universe" is just bigger, there is nothing fundamentally different when I used these analogies in my original post, we're just tricked by differences of size.

Atheists also feel the sense of the numinous.  It's a human trait, not a trait of the faithful that's jeopardized by the status of one's belief in gods. 

And it's about time they act on this sense. The same way they do when they're hungry, thirsty, afraid, shocked, etc. Every sense should at least warrant action or interest to a reasonable person who is, actually, commited to facts.

And saying that this sense is a human trait doesn't exactly help your camp. If human beings as products of nature don't share these traits with what's around them, this warrants a more serious explanation in itself.

So what if not believing in god reduced a persons sense of wonder?  That would be an argument to negative consequences.  Invalid. 

Again. The same way hunger and thirst should be treated as biological warnings to one's exitinction, that we can't ignore, ignoring this sense/urge of belief is simply not sensible.

Natural law is descriptive law - by definition.  I can know that natural law needs no lawgiver for the same reason that I know there are no married bachelors.  Natural law simply isn't referring to that kind of law.  It doesn't have the -defining- requirements that prescriptive law has, and therefore the existence of descriptive law doesn't imply that the requirements of prescriptive law exist.  This is a common equivocation on the boards, for the faithful.  Let's use a fun example.  Molly.  Molly is either a drug, or a girl.  

Molly(the girl) requires parents, therefore Molly(the drug) has parents. 

I suggest you think again about this descriptive law thing, because this is truly laughable.

Descriptive laws describe something's workings, movement, interactions, etc. Namely, they don't create what they're describing. Their very existence, instead of no intelligible law to describe existing things at all, clearly imply a lawgiver.

As you agreed with me above, our universe could've been worse. One way for it to be worse is to have no intelligible pattern any intelligent mammal - such us ourselves - can figure out. And this not the case. Our world is really better than that. It's a big question in philosophy that our universe is intelligble, that the elegant language of mathematics exactly fits what we see, I don't think you can avoid it by a couple of remarks on what descriptive laws mean.

So much for gladly leaving your faith, huh?  You knew that wasn't true when you said it..everyone else did too.  Getting shit wrong in the way you've been is explicable, particularly by your faith - but it's hard to explain why you'd say something so silly about such a menial detail as what you would do confronted with the inadequacies of your superstitions.

Nothing you mentioned counts as some inadequacy of any type. They're the same bad quality criticism one finds when typing the keywords "Errors in the qur'an" in any search engine out there. I suggest you read Muslim apologists answers to these supposed inadequacies before trying again, since my own answers don't seem to fit your tastes.