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

[Edwardo Piet]

My reasoning is immaterial.

So long as it's reasoning, so long as it's your reasoning for your believing - the reasons why you believe, then it's evidence. Whether valid or invalid.

You said you'd take my advice as evidence because you'd believe people don't usually lie.

I was using an analogy to explain that what you said wouldn't be evidence, according to me - would be. Whether valid or invalid. But I would think it would be valid most likely due to most people not being habitual liars.

And I wouldn't be lying to you describing what God is like.

Whether you are lying or not that doesn't mean it's true in and of itself. Those who tell the truth about directions can still be wrong. And then of course I consider that a much more down to earth matter than the God belief which is Supernatural.

Because that's not a serious proposition of a non evidenced entity. But you're avoiding the question.

No I'm not avoiding the question at all. "Why make God an exception?" is what I asked, you then asked "Why NOT make God an exception?" - but that's just a dodge because then I can equally ask the same of the Flying Spaghetti Monster... until you explain why God is any more reasonable whatsoever. You say that the FSM is not a serious proposition - I don't see how "God" is an any more serious proposition at all though so I feel that you are side stepping (whether intentionally or unintentionally).

Seriously though.... why make an exception in the first place? "Why not make an exception?" - is kind of a silly thing to ask if you expect it to stand alone. Because I can ask that question for anything no matter how absurd. Surely there needs to be a rational reason to make an exception - otherwise how are you being at all rational or reasonable at all?

Why not dodge again?

I'm not dodging... I'm making an analogy. Believing in God without evidence is like believing in the FSM without evidence.... absurd.

When pointed out at the beginning of the conversation how it has no place in this discussion, and for you to auto fire it at me ad infinitum... is a little wearing yes. YOU think that evidence is the only way to rationalise anything - end of conversation.

Because it seems to me that you have failed to explain how not believing in valid evidence can be at all rational. And not only that, you have switched between saying there can be evidence and there can't. You have sometimes stated there can be evidence, it is just "non-empircal" but when I ask for it you just go back to the "no evidence" again.... this is ridiculous deception to a ridiculous extent. You have claimed evidence, just not empirical... so I will ask you for your evidence OR perhaps you will decide that you have absolutely no valid evidence whatsoever - but then stay with that and not keep pretending to hold some evidence of some form again? Because if you do, I will, naturally, ask you to provide it.

Also, furthermore... whenever you talk about your own rationalizations/reasons/"reasoning" for God's existence then if this is any indication that he is more likely to exist than not (or that likely at all) - then it is by definition, evidence. That is what evidence is and what it does. So you can't claim sane rational valid reasoning that there actually IS a God and the same time say you have no evidence because that is a contradiction.

Finally - when you claim things such as how you don't care about God's existence and "God doesn't actually exist.... he just IS" - that is a contradiction and a nonsensical statement... surely you know what it means to say that something "is" or "is not"?

We're covering old ground here (as well as spanning every active topic with the same conversation as usual). Belief in what smacks you in the face is unnecessary. Reasoning is only required for the unknown.

If it's probabilistic reasoning, reasoning that God is at all likely, then it's still a form of evidencing - whether the evidence is valid or not. What's the problem with the word "evidence"? Do you have it or not? Whether empiracl or non-empircal - make your mind up for once please. I have consistently made it clear that I know of no evidence for God's existence - you, however, have went from "there can be no evidence" to "there can be no empirical evidence"/"reasoning" for God's existence', repeatedly. You then attempt to clarify to me, it seems, that you indeed do have evidence it's just you thought I was speaking of empirical evidence specifically, and there can't be any of that. And yet - when I ask you then for evidence of ANY form whatsoever... you once again revert back to something like "Silly Evie, how many times have I told you there can't be evidence" - so make your mind up!! Stop playing games - it looks like deception to me when you refuse to provide the evidence you have claimed by reverting from "no empirical evidence" to "no evidence" whenever I question after you have claimed that there can be evidence of at least some form!

Verbal vomit.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Please do actually clarify.

You're trying to chase down your evidence ghost again.

What are you talking about?

Please don't involve me... I don't think he exists/ I am agnostic on EvieGod.

Maybe you'll read my post and admit the fact, for once, that you - at least ostensibly by your postings - kept changing your mind. Do you have evidence of ANY form or not, if so - please give... and if not - then don't expect me to not ask for you some again if you come out claiming "non-empirical" / "reasons/reasoning" again.

EvF