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

[Watson]

Allow me to respond to each of your posts, it may take me some time, but I have answers which I can give each of you. I will divide each section appropriately so that, in the event I need to give a repeat answer, I can direct your attention back to the original answer.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, nothing can occur by 'mere coincidence', because there had to be an original action which caused it. To brush something off as coincidence is feeble because that would deny there was an original action which caused the reaction. A clear contradiction is plain.

You seem to have a problem with definitions. This is a mere observation (with a hint to look up words before you debate), don't go screaming ad hominem on me.

coincidence "happenstance (an event that might have been arranged although it was really accidental)" http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/web...oincidence

A.) haha I do not, in fact, have a problem with coincidence and I do not take offense or see ad himinem in what you said. However, I find my own definition of coincidence has brought me much more accurate and applicable results when going about my day to day life. This is because I believe in my own words as true, and put the utmost faith in them first and foremost.

I don't find that that definition even applies to this situation, as if it might have been arranged then that makes it all the more likely that a God was behind was appeared to be 'mere coincidence.'

No where in the definition nor in my reply did I suggest anything that denied an original action. What I was actually implying in my post is that the mind and body react to the situations (the "action") and lead your friend to make the choices he did. It is a mere coincidence, an event that might have been arranged although it was really accidental, that your friend happened to do all that he did.

B.) You still have failed to point out the original 'action', however. You must take into consideration the event and it's pieces as a whole, look at the bigger picture, and tell me where there is a more likely cause than God that set the chain of events in motion.

C.) My friend did not have to make the decisions he made that night, but he chose to because something inside him, subconsciously, knew there was a proper place he had to be that night. He was shown the way he needed to go, though he himself was no consciouly aware of it, and he took that path.

When you say "my friend's body did not cause each of the events within this scenario" I get the impression that you think his body doing actions is what i meant. I included body when I was talking about the mind because the nerves are within the body that are not considered part of the brain. If I remember correctly from Anatomy, some reflexes do not enter the mind before the reaction occurs. For example, when you hit your knee's reflex the signal goes to your spinal cord and your spinal cord sends the reaction to your leg muscles (I think this is one of the reflexes that doesn't reach the brain before the body reacts) the original signal continues up the spinal cord and goes into your brain and lets your brain recognize that something hit your leg, but your brain doesn't send the reflex to your leg, the spinal cord does.

A.), B.) & C.)
D.) There appears to be no natural stimuli for my friend's having made the choices he did in the sequence he did, as I have already showed you where the definition of 'coincidence' could be considered faulty or to my use, and there still appears to be no original 'action' which he could have acted and reacted upon.

The body and mind did not conspire to cause the events that night (I'm just going to refer to the brain for now own because typing body and mind is choppy and now you know what i mean), they were merely reacting to the interactions going on. Your friend didn't choose to leave the party because god lead him to, his brain was subconsciously reacting to the situation and lead him to the conclusion to leave. When you called he could have already been tired from the evening with his other friends and decided to go home instead.

E.) Gotta correct you here. I didn't call him, HE considered coming to see ME. He was distracted however, by the fact that there were police men on my street, so he caleld his cousin instead. So no, he didn't leave the party because he was tired, since he actively sought out people to hang out with afterward. So then, his brain was subconsciously reacting to a desire to leave the party anyway...but why? If he wished to continue hanging out, why on earth did he leave? The party was still going.

Nor is God within the hypothetical situation. In the scenario, you are able to see your friend's position clearly and understand it completely because you are emotionally connected to them, and can read between the lines of what they are saying. You still have the option to go with option A if you wish, but option B has been made clearer because you understand the person offering it to you, and by extension, you understand their proposition.

So we're both in agreement that out of free will I chose to go with option B.
[/quote]
F.) Yes. because you understood the option regardless of your own thoughts and plans. You chose it because a friend presented it to you, a friend who you were very clsoe to. So close were you to this friend, that their train of thought in presentign option B to you was entirely clear to you.

G.) This is what happens with God. He is a friend offering you the second option. You don't have to accept it, but because God is your friend, you understand His train of thought as you would your own.

I don't have time to respond to everything else right now, so if you could all pelase wait for me to edit this post before responding, it would be extremely nice of you. Thanks!

-Watson