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

[Watson]

Unfortunately my homework is repetitive so I get side tracked easily. Anyways...

Homework is always a drag. xP

H.) But why use the dictionary definition when, in past experiences, said definition has failed to shed light on the experience in question? My own definition is based upon real life observance of coincidence as it has occured before me. It would be like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You also point out that that definition is accepted by the majority of people as true, but remember, so is Christianity.

I use the dictionary definition because if everyone used their own definition we wouldn't be talking about the same thing.

1. - We would, if everyone would observe the world around them and come to their own conclusion. As long as they believe whole-heartedly in their own definition, and are viewing the same world as I am, the likelihood that they will reach the same or similar conclusions to my own is high.

2. - Even if they don't, as long as they don't consider me an enemy for my seperate conclusion, and view me as a friend since we are of the same species, then they will, at least, come to understand why I believe the way I believe.

If you'd like, come up with a definition of coincidence of your own, based upon your observanes of the world around you. Then we can compare and contrast, and see which is more accurate.

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.'

The definition I provided is pertinent to the situation because your assumption that a god is behind this makes it seem like the situation might have been arranged.

3. - I am not assuming that a god is behind this, I believe there is a god behind this. Assumption is based on little to no true proof, other than a feeble grasp of the assumed 'having happened before.'

The Christian God is all knowing and therefore would have lead your friend to his house or wherever he went to help; this is where I consider the situation might have been arranged. The rest of the definition says that it is actually accidental, which was my point.

4. - But again, there is no way for it to have been an accident, considering it had to have had a cause. This means where a situation appears to be accidental, it could actually have been arranged. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then this definition of coincidence disproves itself. And since there seems to be no more likely explanation, the arranger must have been God.

5. - Also, read my post further down. I specify that the Christian God is in fact not all knowing, but instead all understanding. He loves everyone and everything, and when you love someone or something, it is easy to understand it completely. So in this case, God would have understood that there was a place my friend needed to be, and arranged things accordingly. This goes back to 2. above.

Yet you cannot prove that such a thing as 'gravity' exists. I am not denying the natural force itself, merely pointing out that to presume if you throw the calculator up, it will come down, is an excercise of faith. Merely because, you cannot for certain know whether gravity will act on it without assumption or belief. To assume is arrogant, however, because it is without basis at all. That is why it is an assumption.

If it is the gravity defined by science then it will come down unless I threw the calculator at a speed that would escape Earth's gravitational pull. The assumption that gravity will act on my calculator is an assumption, but not one without basis.

But it has very little basis, other than a feeble concept of, "I've seen this happen before, it's going to happen again." This goes back to 3. above.