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

[Watson]

Why do you think any kind of experience no matter how miraculous, is evidence for God?

Surely the more ridiculous the experience, the more likely that you are delusion/hallucinating/mistaken somehow.

Well, as per my example earlier in this topic, it is not necessarily that the experience is ridiculous or absurd at all. There can be nothing apparently 'miraculous' about the experience, but when one examines the experience itself, they find there was something...there, all along.

No matter how absurd something is I will believe it if there is enough evidence, but the more absurd and improbable the more evidence I will require.

You don't believe in an invisible man in the sky? Well that's all very well but personification is all over the Bible. God is considered to be a "he" and is personified in the Bible.

"He" is not personified in any particular form or limited idea, however, even when he takes physical manifestation. This is because, He's God. He is a part of everything.

You don't think he has the capability(supposing he exists) to personify Himself as something corporeal, something etheral, or something just plain non-physical(such as the smile of a stranger, a warm breeze, an unexplainable feeling or even the atmosphere around you[it's very hard to describe what I mean])?

Personally, I like to think of God in an older brother sort of sense, rather than a Fatherly sense. Simply because I have found the bond between brothers in real life to be very strong.

But whether he is a person in the sky or not makes no difference to the fact he's still a deity and still improbable either way. Where is the evidence?

The problem comes in labeling him a deity, or using mislading terms such as "Son of God", "Living God" etc., etc. This particular deity is meant to be a part of everything on this earth. Literally, God is life, love, and everything in between.

Why do you think personal experience is valid evidence? Surely that evidence is incredibly weak considering we need much better evidence in that for science.... and even scientific evidence is not enough for God because he is unreachable for it. God - as in, any deity - or the Christian one in this case - is extremely complex with his attributes because they don't just come from nowhere and they're not just there right from the beginning.

That's the thing about God- he is not complex, not in His mannerisms, His attrbutes, or His existance. It is merely an attempt to 'science-ify'(pardon) that makes himseem complex.

This requires insanely strong evidence - evidence so strong I can't think of any strong enough - as I said, even scientific evidence is insufficient for God. So if you don't have strong enough evidence why believe? Personal experience is very weak evidence, much to weak for science in and of itself (as in the anecdote of a scientist is not evidence...) at the very least. If personal experience is too weak a form of evidence for science then it's certainly too weak for The Supernatural. The natural world is already observed and understood by science somewhat... it is much more reasonable and yet that demands strong evidence. The supernatural - as in God, as in deities - as in anything 'miraculous' at all be it good or bad connotations - demands even stronger.

I understand where you are coming from and I'm glad for the respectful response. But please, in your search for evidence, keep in mind that there is more than one way to acquire evidence, and there is more than one kind of evidence!

As I said with the snow flakes, the experience itself can be had in infinite combinations, but it is recognizing and understanding that what you've just seen and felt is a snow flake that makes it a snow flake.