Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[theVOID]

arguments
1- Intuition. Religious elements, or a belief system, of our nature is as universal as rational elements and social elements. Sensory perceptions, intellectual intuitions and moral intutions being 3 types of intuition. "When a man feels pain, he may refer it to the wrong place, or to a wrong cause; but he knows that it is pain. If he sees an object, he may be mistaken as to its nature; but he knows that he sees, and that what he sees is the cause of the sensation which he experiences. These are intuitions, because they are immediate perceptions of what is true. The conviction which attends our sensations is due not to instruction but to the constitution of our nature."-Hodge (ref) Intuition allows no proof necessary. I don't have to convince anyone that the shortest distance between 2 lines, geometrically, is a straight line, or that there exists right and wrong. It can be supported by current practical experience, but none is necessary for convition of belief.

Our human intuition is subjective and infallible and very much guided by our presuppositions. This is not proof for the existence of god in any way, and to accept the standard of intuition as evidence then you must also accept any claims based on the intuition of others.

The Geometrical analogy is also fundamentally flawed as it can be demonstrated as true mathematically to support the intuition, whereas there is no such way to demonstrate that your intuition about God is true. Human intuition has failed us numerous times in the past, from the Sun orbiting the earth to the flat earth theory and beyond, our intuition is in no way a measure of truth, rather an estimate based on our presuppositions that needs to be objectively verified to have any credence.

2- The bible doesn't try to convince man that God exists, it is the presuposition that "In the begining God..." And was written by believers for believers. It does contain analytical accounts on the idea of God and a developing idea of the properties of said God. Other religious works use the same presupositions for their diety/ dieties allowing for intuitive acceptance of a God.

Would you like to explain how that is in any way evidence for the existence of god?

3- Creator arguement. I don't believe the universe to be eternal. Existance in this universe is contigent, or dependant. Meaning every part of it is dependent on or affect the other parts. Cause produce effect, which are themselves an effect unto themselves. From current observation we have seen stars cease, buildings crumble, corpses decay to dust. Nothing within our observation (being finite creatures) is independant or self-sustaining. Why then would I assume that our universe is eternal and independant. I personally feel the universe will entropy and had a beginning, but won't reference the second law seing as it doesn't apply. If it is not self-sustaining and began, it needs a catalyst for it's inception. No where in here did I state that God can't have a creator. I won't make suppositions outside of my percievable existance though.

1) Whether you personally believe the universe is eternal or not is not relevant, if you want to use it as an argument you must prove it first.

2) Causality is not proof of god, just proof of mechanism so suggesting that because the parts of the universe influence each other there must be a god is illogical.

3) The universe not being eternal is not relevant - the matter and energy that make up the universe cannot be created nor destroyed as stated by the thermodynamic law for the conservation of energy , whether it be in the form of a singularity or a vast empty universe plagues by entropy does not matter.

4-Intelligent design. While I agree with evolution and some part of natural selection leading to today's society, I can not account for the idealistic morals, societal developement and hugely complicated eco-system which we live in and reasonably accept the lack of extra-terrestial life elswhere as not having a specific design. While I agree that intellegent design, as a movement, is very small minded and "junk science" you can't really scientifically measure the intangible. Selective evolution has shown a lot of real promise for creation. It begs the question who did the selecting though.

1)That is an argument from ignorance and is a logical fallacy.

2)Nature does the selection... through survival of the fittest, hence the name. The fact that you even had to ask the most basic question of natural selection suggests your knowledge of the theory is entirely inadequate to be using it as a serious argument anyway.

5- If God is intuitive, man "argues that we have an idea of God. This idea of God is infinitely greater than man himself. Hence, it cannot have it's origin in man. It can only have it's origin in God himself"-Hoeksema

Absolute nonsense, this is the weakest single argument i have ever seen for the existence of God. The fact that man can conceive of the infinite means nothing, whether this infinite thing be God or a number series.

6-Moralistic arguement. Everyone has a belief of right and wrong. We'll call it a voice or conscience. I'm sure I'd enjoy life a lot more if I didn't feel guilty when going to a stip club or wanting to bash in the head of that jerk in the office. This sense of duty has no regard for my inclinations and is not self-imposed wholely. It also supposes a speaker.

There is no proof there what-so-ever, just you asserting that morals require external authority, a completely unproven assumption in it's self.

7- Congruity. The postulate that God exists best explains moral, mental and religious nature, matter in the universe and the laws of the material universe. Can we really see every particle that science inffers, or do we postulate an explination that harmonizes the observable results?

What makes more sense to an individual is not in any way a reflection of what is true. Of course God makes it easy to explain everything, it is a literal blank Cheque you have given yourself, but just because you have a theory of everything still does not make it true.

---

The singularity is also 'timeless' as described in relativity as it gave birth to both time and space. There is no difference between the claim that God is outside of the universe and that the singularity is outside of time - both are infinite by definition and do not require a cause.

So the two are the same. That's what I thought.

Yes and thus disproves the First-cause argument for the existence of god.

Carbon-14 atom produced Nitrogen 14 emitting ionizing particles are created by the Carbon 14 atom are they not? Can you show me a source for that if I'm wrong? And does this fact not then equally disprove the theory of a big bang? / Presumably these particles don't fall outside of the physical universe we understand to have emanated from a first cause?

The Decay it's self is uncaused (not part of a causal chain)

How does that even remotely disprove the big bang? Your argument makes no sense.

That it's part of the physical universe makes it consistent with both the singularity and first cause. If it doesn't then your first statement (above) is incorrect.

That what is part of the universe? I have no idea what you are trying to get at here,, can you make it more clear?

Equally to fine tuning we could apply the opposite standpoint: the rarity of life proving divine providence. I don't assume confirmation from 50/ 50 scenarios & wouldn't expect science to either.

The rarity of life proves nothing more than life is rare, whether the origins of life are naturalistic or supernatural is another issue entirely, however the idea that God put the first life forms of life is unfalsifiable and also has no evidence in favor for it and therefore cannot be proof for the existence of God.

& the same applies conversely. You're using a 50/ 50 argument.

Yes, but i am not trying to prove one position over another, i am trying to disprove it as an argument for the existence of God, which i did, because it moves the argument no further from the initial assumption than it was at the beginning.