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

[roundsquare]

I'm back!!! Excuse me for any discommode that may have ensued from my incapacity to reply to your points sooner, thing is I have been colossally busy these past few weeks, bogged down with assignments and tests to be precise, that it's been close to impossible to make the time to reply to any posts. Now that I have some time to spare I will have a look at your points right away.

[quote='roundsquare' pid='62597' dateline='1270477455']
at this point you have completely shown your total lack of understanding of the big bang. i can safely say that the kca is intact. so much for your rumbling. you have not attempted to refute a single point i raised. what you did was dismiss my points which isnt the same as refuting them. now its time for me to ask a few questions. 1. does the standard big bang theory not say energy was created? 2. is the spacetime singularity not defined as the boundary point of spacetime. 3. if the singularity is not a boundary point of spacetime what is it. 4. despite your irrelevant rambling is the depression in my example not an effect of the ball resting on the cushion? 5. if your answer to 4 is no what then is causing the depression. if your answer is yes then you admit that the effect which is the depression in the cushion occurs simultaneously with the cause which is the ball.

You said:

1. No, it says no such thing. I'll also ask you what the "standard Big Bang Theory" is.

The standard big bang model or the lambda-CDM model holds that about 13.7 billion years ago the universe started expanding in all directions from an infinitesimally small, infinitely dense point known as a singularity. All of space-time and all it contains including energy/matter had its origin in this explosion (by explosion I mean the abrupt appearance of expanding space time, not the chaos seen in an atomic bomb explosion) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model. According to this model space-time began with the singularity, the model fails to address what happens prior to t=10^-43 s, because beyond that point all we are left with is speculation. But there is no doubt that the universe began to exist in scientists minds, since the universe began to exist it did not exist eternally:

Most cosmologists reject this alternative because of the severe problem of the second law of thermodynamics .Applied to the Universe as a whole, this law states that the cosmos is on a one-way slide towards a state of maximum disorder, or entropy. Irreversible changes, such as the gradual consumption of fuel by the Sun and stars, ensure that the Universe must eventually "run down" and exhaust its supplies of useful energy. It follows that the Universe cannot have been drawing on this finite stock of useful energy for all eternity.http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/daybegan.html

If the universe began to exist so did its content (energy, and matter) this is a conclusion that seems rather axiomatic. Energy exists in a vacuum, in space, no space-time no energy, its a self-evident conclusion.

The following quote from Prof. Hawking further demonstrate what I have been saying about the big bang:

Http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/arch...verse.html
For thousands of years, people have wondered about the universe. Did it stretch out forever or was there a limit? And where did it all come from? Did the universe have a beginning, a moment of creation? Or had the universe existed forever? The debate between these two views raged for centuries without reaching any conclusions. Personally, I'm sure that the universe began with a hot Big Bang. But will it go on forever? If not, how will it end? I'm much less certain about that. The expansion of the universe spreads everything out, but gravity tries to pull it all back together again. Our destiny depends on which force will win." —Stephen Hawking
How did the universe really begin?
Most astronomers would say that the debate is now over: The universe started with a giant explosion, called the Big Bang. The big-bang theory got its start with the observations by Edwin Hubble that showed the universe to be expanding. If you imagine the history of the universe as a long-running movie, what happens when you show the movie in reverse? All the galaxies would move closer and closer together, until eventually they all get crushed together into one massive yet tiny sphere. It was just this sort of thinking that led to the concept of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand. Amazingly, theorists have deduced the history of the universe dating back to just 10 -43 second (10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second) after the Big Bang. Before this time all four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were unified, but physicists have yet to develop a workable theory that can describe these conditions.

Http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/public/bot.html
Hawking on the beginning.
Public Lectures - The Beginning of Time
In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.

You said:

2. No, here's a definition:

A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, some of which are a measure of the density of matter.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Of course that is its definition, but it is also a space-time boundary, because beyond it space-time discontinues.

according to the classical cosmological models, the universe began with the big bang, another space-time boundary, a singularity where all matter of the universe is compressed to infinitely high density.http://www.aei.mpg.de/einsteinOnline/en/navMeta/dictionary/s/index.html#singularity

You said:

4. Yes, the cause and effect example was indeed an example of cause and effect. However, it did not demonstrate how such a cause and effect was A) Instantaneous and B) relevant to the discussion, in which you're equating applicable qualities in physics to a concept that did not necessarily rely on these qualities. You also did not cite your evidence for such a claim, or any evidence, for that matter.

Again you have drifted away on immaterial points, and in so doing you have missed the point that I tried to make that simultaneous causation is a reality, but if you arr dissatisfied with the first example, I can give you a couple more examples of simultaneous causation which do not rely on gravity, and here they are: pulling a spring, bending a ruler, the sensation caused by a fly coming to rest on your face, etc. As to the pillow example gravity isn't required for the simultaneous causation to hold, example an astronaut in space can jab the pillow and cause a depression, devoid of gravity. So again time poses no problem for the KCA. God created the universe at the same time as it came into existence, at t=0.

You said:

5. I explained that the cause and effect example is an example of that alone - cause and effect that is dictated by the laws of physics. I don't agree that it's instantaneous and I contend that it is irrelevant, and it's a pretty plain apples to oranges comparison.

Cause and effect are not dictated by physical laws, what physical law dictates the causal principle? Please fix my ignorance. I will address you design arguments as I get time, right now I am still a bit busy to forward a proper response to each and every point you raise.