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

[Watson]

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.

That doesn't stop people using a definition which may be different to another person's, and thus leading to confusion. You can't simply use your own definition for words. It would lead to chaos. This is why we have specific definitions for things.

We're observing the same world, therefore if there are differences between two different definitions, they are likely to be minor or unimportant at best.

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.

Bullshit. People are the same species, but they don't think alike. The number of religions / political parties / social groups / hobbies / etc...etc.. is evidence of that. Some people think one way, some people think a different way. When beliefs clash (as atheism / theism do), one cannot understand why someone believes the way they do. If you could, you would be of the same belief as that person.

The part that I have bolded in your post is where I will state my counter-point from. The number of different view-points comes from the fact that everyone thinks differently, but the fact that these view-points clash is because the people holding them cannot understand how the two points could be connected or work together. This is born from ignorance of the opposing view-point, rather than not holding the view-point in question.

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.

WTF? How on earth could you measure accuracy of a definition when someone is simply making up their own definition for a word. If you don't have a standard to compare it to, you can't measure it. If I define "cloud" as a fluffy white thing in the sky", and someone else defines it as "a very large tv", which is more accurate? Both are descriptions of actual things, and if you make your own definition, you cannot comment on the accuracy of another person's. To do so would be to resort to some standard (for instance, if more people used *my* definition of a cloud). However, that is the thing you seem to be against doing.

You misunderstand. I wasn't telling him to just pull a definition out of the sky, I was asking him to pull it from his bservances and perception of the world around him. Since we aboth human beings and both see the same world, it is likely that unless he has seen something I have not, he will come up with a similar definiton to mine. Your standard is real life, not fantasy.

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.'

Actually, an assumption is based on no proof whatsoever. That's why it's an assumption. It can either be true or false. Whether it is true or false is not determined.

All the more reason it is unreasonable to make an assumption on something. If you're arguing that, then why isn't it reasonable to just 'assume' there is a God? Because it is arrogant and lacks understanding, that is why.

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.

Accidents have causes all the time. Look up the definition of an 'accident'...oh wait, you have a vendetta against dictionaries. My bad.

Try to ease up on the sarcasm, it makes you seem pompous and, well, arrogant. For the sake of correctin gmyself, however, we'll substitute where I said 'accident' and replace it with the word 'coincidence' again.

"No more likely explanation"...are you insane? You can't prove it happened another way, therefore it was God? You do realise how unlikely God is right?

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be truth. Read my prior posts, not just the one you responded to.

You are asking for the existence of a being that dwells outside the known universe, outside of time, outside of pretty much everything. Not only this, but the God is omnipotent and omniscient (which we are simply unable to comprehend since they involve infinities).

The story itself was proof and evidence, but notthe kindwhich you want. It's all th eproof I need.

I have a more likely explanation. Guess what? It doesn't involve the existence of such a being, and it certainly doesn't require the enormous amounts of evidence you would need to prove the existence of said being.

By all means, share you explanation. I'm open to it and I will listen intently. But once again you misinterpret theidea of what 'evidence' is, because thre is not just one kind of evidence. To say that there is would be to close one's mind to, and write off an array of possibilities. This, I have covered in previous posts.

You are arguing from ignorance and personal incredulity. Just because there isn't a "more likely" explanation, or just because you cannot think of one, does not mean you can simply insert any cause you like instead. Your explanation is one based on no evidence whatsoever,

It's based on evidence, alright. Just not the kind of evidence you wish to perceive. My explanation is not just an insert, and is certainly not ignorant. Don't take me for a fool.

and so itself is put to the bottom of the "likely" pile.

And yet your explanation, from what you have stated previously, is much moe reasonable. Share, then, that explanation.

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.

Evidence please...

Uh, a working understanding of the Bible...

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.

No, it's got a very strong basis. Namely: Physics. We have laws describing how gravity interacts with objects. These laws are descriptive of the observable reality. If you think physics is based on the concept of "I've seen this happen before, it's going to happen again", you are very mistaken.

Then what causes gravity to work? I firmly believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, regardless of, as you mentioned, how quantum physics works. So prove to me that gravity will work every time by specifying it's cause.