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

[theVOID]

---

..which equates to the same thing in my opinion... so can you explain how you can dismiss those two arguments so I can see?

It IS NOT the same thing. Disproving two arguments for the existence of God does not mean i have disproved God entirely.

The 'first cause' argument is easy two disprove for two simple reasons, though there are many arguments that take it out:

1) It is a blatantly obvious case of special pleading, ie 'everything that has a beginning has a cause, except God'

2) Not everything that has a beginning has a cause, for example a Carbon-14 atom can spontaneously decay into Nitrogen 14 emitting ionizing particles without anything at all acting upon it, no force, no energy, nothing. It is a truly random process that is entirely uncaused. Therefore claiming that everything that has a beginning has a cause is false. Considering that, Occams razor can be applied to show that the Creator/Prime Mover requires one more assumption than the singularity while not having any basis in necessity and is therefore not the preferred explanation logically.

The argument from fine tuning is destroyed by the context and scale of the universe. The argument that the universe was made for life is rendered ridiculous by the fact that for one life supporting planet in a tiny corner of the galaxy is accompanied by incomprehensibly vast regions of empty space, galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars and a universe with hundreds of billions of galaxies. In this scale life does appear as an extremely low probability occurrence that can take place only in very rare circumstances.

---

Thanks for doing that VOID Unfortunately I just lost a reply due to an error posting. Here goes again...

That God is timeless and therefore defies first cause logically is not special pleading. Special pleading would be evoked if the claim was that God was constrained by time the same as the universe but was also exempt from first cause.

The singularity is also 'timeless' as described in relativity as it gave birth to both time and space. There is no difference between the claim that God is outside of the universe and that the singularity is outside of time - both are infinite by definition and do not require a cause.

Carbon-14 atom produced Nitrogen 14 emitting ionizing particles are created by the Carbon 14 atom are they not? Can you show me a source for that if I'm wrong? And does this fact not then equally disprove the theory of a big bang? / Presumably these particles don't fall outside of the physical universe we understand to have emanated from a first cause?

The Decay it's self is uncaused (not part of a causal chain)

How does that even remotely disprove the big bang? Your argument makes no sense.

Does the big bang theory offer a solution to first cause? It fits with first cause. So we're not adding to something complete. Occam's razor doesn't apply. We aren't invoking an illogicality.

The big bang theory is that all matter and energy was condensed into a point of zero size (no space) which became unstable and expanded into the universe we know today - it is an attempt at the first cause for the universe, and right or wrong their is actually evidence to suggest it happened, weighing in favor of the singularity whereas the case for God has no such supporting evidence. You can still place God behind the singularity but that is yet another assumption and therefore violates Occams Razor.

Equally to fine tuning we could apply the opposite standpoint: the rarity of life proving divine providence. I don't assume confirmation from 50/ 50 scenarios & wouldn't expect science to either.

The rarity of life proves nothing more than life is rare, whether the origins of life are naturalistic or supernatural is another issue entirely, however the idea that God put the first life forms of life is unfalsifiable and also has no evidence in favor for it and therefore cannot be proof for the existence of God.