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

[theVOID]

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.

1.I emphatically agree that intuition is completely subjective and personally infallible. However that statement is incongruous with the following statements so perhaps you should check your definition and reassert.

If you consider intuition evidence for God then you must also accept all other claims based on an argument for intuition, such as all other gods, psychic phenomenon ghosts etc. The problem with holding intuition as a standard for evidence is that the bar is set as low as possible and damn near anything can pass it. So lets set the bar higher to weed out the falsities.

2.How is demonstratability in proofs a fundamental flaw? While scientific, mathmatical or historical demonstratability is best used in its' according fields; I propose you use spiritual demonstratability to test spiritual truths.

Your analogy was flawed, it wasn't even "comparing Apples and oranges" more like comparing Apples and Thunderbolts.

Spiritual Truths are far too subjective to be held as proof for anything, just as intuition is.

3.Your assertion that intuition has failed us is flawed in that more correctly is is actions based on beliefs that have failed us. Theese beliefs can be partly because of intuition, but I highly suspect that few people act on intuition alone, and that is is the lesser of the parts of action.

Trying to put words in my mouth now? I was not talking about how belief affects intuition, just intuition it's self. Take Quantum Mechanics for example - the things that happen at the very foundation of matter and energy constantly defy intuition, a good example of how intuition is often not linked to reality at all.

Intuition is not proof of god.

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

Sure. I was referring to the strength of conviction of man's inate sense of God in the assertion that most religious texts presupose their respective God/Gods and to not attempt to prove them.

Which is not proof of God, just proof that some people strongly believe in God.

1. Isn't the Big Bang theory one of the most provable and most widely accepted scientific theories? If something had a begining and a history, then it by definition is finite, not infinite.

The universe as we know it, ie all matter and energy confined in space and time, had a beginning. the singularity however was before time existed, so to talk about it causally is one of the most meaningless pursuits you could possibly engage in.

2. proof of universal or anthropic mechanism doesn't explain the human mind. On a universal scale though it does indicate that the laws of nature do apply to the universe and that it all works in a predescribed fasion. I know of no known self-sustaining machine in this universe. Why would I assume that the sum of it's parts are different from it's whole? Thusly I'm inclined to believe that mechanism implies design as does the nature of laws implies a law-giver.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (Argument from ignorance)

Again, i did not ask what you are inclined to believe, i asked for proof of the existence of God.

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.

1. Yes it was I will reassert. When you see a watch you instinctively assume that it had a designer. When I see the complex developement of Granodiorite in Yosemite. The more science has found out about the complexity of the universe the less it appears random causality.

Paley's watch... really?

The idea that something in nature is too complex to be formed by natural process is the fallacy Argument from ignorance.

2. If there is a requirement for certain degrees I must have before a discussion please list them and I will kindly bow out. If you feel I am underqualified to even mention certain subjects please list them. However I believe it is called Ad Hominem.

No, you just need to stop committing logical fallacies.

3. Natural selection is subjective if selective pressure can be produced by any aspect of the environment including human nature and choice. Therefore it is not a complete arguement. When human choice is applied to selective evolution, and is based off intuition or predisposition, it logically leads to likened developement. I subconsciously must want me kids to be like me because they've learned how to "be" by observation. We are constantly evolving into more effecient and "usefull" beings. Ergo, we've learned how to "be" by imitating not nature but an idealistic and external existance that is greater than us.

1) Natural selection = Hostilities in the environment leading to fatalities of individuals that in turn will see that those best adapted to survive have a higher chance of surviving, intelligent hostilities and natural hostilities in this sense are no different.

2) Humans did not evolve in a particular direction towards specific predetermined goals, the fact that we are the way we are now is one of an inconceivably many ways we could have turned out, or not turned out at all, was the environment different from the beginning of evolution.

3) We don't imitate nature, we survive it.

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.

It is not proof of God's existance but proof of what god is if he does exists. If evidence is cummulative this applies.

100 bad arguments do not culminate into a single valid one.

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

Do you deny there is a moral law to society throughout history and today? Explain to me then how right and wrong are self-imposed or completely developed from natural instincts please.

There is moral law, it is subjective and changes over time, for instance your own holy book has an injunction that legalizes slavery - something i consider totally immoral, yet God apparently approves. There is also cases like Gay rights, i believe they should have every right everyone else has, yet other people disagree, this is evidence for subjective morality.

I believe moral laws arose from the development of social structures - but i have no idea why you think it is relevant - i asked for evidence for the existence of God.

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.

Nor do I indeed state that I know what is the truth of the true God. I have an idea of God and it is backed by percievable evidence and they are congruent and that fascillitates belief of existance.

Whether you think you know the truth about God or not is irrelevant, i asked for evidence for his existence whether logical or empirical and you have provided nothing of the sort.