Here is why you should believe in God.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

That looks like a big fat no...if I dont consider the reasons™ you gave to be good reasons™, and you don't have others to offer.  You would, instead, like me to consider that my disregard for those reasons™ is a mistake.  Okay, considered.  Truly, and it isn't.  You've given no good reason.  I'm only asking whether or not you have something else..because right or wrong, what you've offered isn't convincing.

So I am going to stay 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.

....whatever you say....

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.

You don't have the first clue as to what axioms I appeal to - thus your claim is wrong on it;s face.  I'm willing to be proven wrong though, and it would be easy.  Name a single axiom I would appeal to?

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.

All people act on this sense you bigoted piece of shit, lol.  -You- think that the only way to act appropriately is to be a msulim..but you think that because you're a bigoted piece of shit.

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.

An argument to consequences is invalid no matter what consequences you might imagine.  A true thing can have terrible consequences.  Do you understand?

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.

-and I;d suggest that you look into prescriptive and natural law.  You offered a textbook equivocation.  I don't need to argue it or point to some novel religious viewpoint.  That;s what you did..and why you are wrong, logically speaking. 

This is the part I enjoy..where I point out that your religious beliefs may be true, but that they can't be true for the reasons™ you've offered.

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.

Still haven't left your faith, huh?  Fucking liar.  Silly, stupid, predicatable liar. No one made you that way...not even your religion...it was a personal choice.

Gratz on that, liar.

You cant argue, by good reason...upon which you insist... that your stupid fucking god is really real. If you could, you would have by now. Prove me wrong. Do something different next post.

Or don't! Frankly..because I suspect that you're incapable. You know less than you believe, and are patently unable to offer a coherent criticism of any position on your good reasons™.

If those reasons aren't good enough, then there's no reason to believe in god at all...huh? So hop hop you dumb son of a bitch. Give better reasons or accept the weakness that you've insisted for your own silly case. When you asserted that you would gladly leave your religion for good reasons, you didn't mean it. What you meant was that you wanted to argue about those reasons, and why your shit reasons Were Too! the Good Reasons!

Denied.