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

[tavarish]

First off, you might want to use the Return or Enter key, it's not very much fun scaling a wall of text.

Ok, let's get on with it.

Tavarish to my philosophical argument against an eternal universe you say that i am again assuming the causal principle was applicable prior to the big bang. its not clear to me how i have assumed this, infact how can i do this when im dealing with a eternal universe and not a finite one?

How are you dealing with an eternal universe if you contend that it had a creator?

e·ter·nal (-tûrnl)
adj.
1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time. See Synonyms at infinite.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eternal

moving on you are yet to deal with the philosophical argument ive presented. your claim that i said there is a God because everything has a cause is at best a terrible distortion of what i actually said. refer to the relevant post to see what i said.

The kalam cosmological argument is an argument that states everything has a cause, and the first cause is God. Was I missing something there?

as a result your counter analogy of a unicorn fails as it doesnt deal with the kca but a caricature of it.

My analogy deals with the exact same method of assuming an outcome based on a single facet or observation. In order for it to be consistent with reality, the kalam first has to define God, then demonstrate that he exists. Only after that, observations can be made as to his nature and possible intentions. The argument covers none of that, and assumes his necessary existence beforehand. Tell me, if we replaced "God" with "committee of fairies", what would change?

as to your objections regarding my argument from id, it is irrelevant that natural systems replicate, natural systems still are ordered complexities with interworking interacting parts that are no less complex.

And that's where your argument fails. The fact that these organisms replicate is exactly why complexity occurs. It is ONLY through development of imperfect self-replicating genes and environmental pressure, all of it is accounted for pretty conclusively. However, it is important to note that natural selection does not always favor more complex organisms, as evolution isn't progressive.

Here are a few peer-reviewed articles to further the point:

What is complexity?
Christoph Adami

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journ...1&SRETRY=0

Evolution of biological complexity

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/4463.full

and these sort of complexity has never been observed to arise apart from an intelligent cause.

Provide evidence for this.

your driftwood example of complexity doesnt come close, infact it is a categorical error to compare it with biological systems or a pocket watch.

The driftwood in my example is a complex biological system.

evolutionist have never provided evidence for evolution producing biological complexity. instead theyve only provided handwaving and bedtime stories, and what james shapiro call wishfull speculation.

I'll refer you to the two scholarly articles I posted above, and I'll add this one, as it doesn't seem like you fully understand what evolution actually is.

Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer

Francisco J. Ayala

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl.1/8567.full

as to your genetic similarities argument it can just as well be better used as an argument for the creator. we should expect a designer to use similar designs in his different inventions.

We can make any claim we want when it doesn't require supporting evidence and its basis is logically fallacious.

also if genes from different organisms were utterly different what would we eat. genetic similarity between organisms allow our bodies to digest and use the food we eat.

What the hell are you talking about? You're saying we were created with similar genetic structures because of diet? How does that argument make any sense?

genetic similarities has raised challenges for evolution, because there have been situations where phylogenetic tree based on gene similarity doesnt rhyme with the fossil record.

1. Challenges for evolution are apparent and numerous, but they don't disprove or negate the theory. There are debates all the time within the field (time period of specific speciation and evolution events mainly), but none of them, to my knowledge, have to do with the theory somehow not lining up with its own assertions.

2. Provide evidence for your claim.