Atheists, what are the most convincing theist arguments you heard of?

[Whateverist]

How at such times can you be certain that what you are experiencing is the ordinarily transparent apparatus of consciousness or some secret aspect of the world?

When you touch the Absolute, you know it absolutely. I'm not trying to be obscure. It's just something that isn't easy to describe and when people try it just ends up sounding trite or contradictory.

That just begs the question: how do you know whether the absolute is the ordinarily transparent apparatus of consciousness or some secret aspect of the world?

[AceBoogie]

I can't say I have ever witnessed a theist make a convincing argument for the existence of a supernatural deity. There are certain questions that make me wonder about our origins though...

How did life begin on Earth?

Why is there something instead of nothing... why does anything exist at all?

Are there other planets out there as populated as Earth?

Are there other advanced civilizations out there in the universe?

Some of these questions make me wonder about certain things... but these questions point toward god about as much as they point toward the flying spaghetti monster. The point being, sure, I have questions like everyone else... I just don't jump to conclusions based on zero evidence and an absence of answers.

But convincing arguments from theists? Not that I can remember. Plenty of theists are highly intelligent individuals who I'm sure could make very convincing arguments on almost any other subject. The subject of god, however, is so fantastical that there's not much any theist could do to convince me.

So far we've all seen attempts at...

-proving god's existence through logic or mathematics
-proving the Holy Bible is based on real history and true stories
-proving that Jesus was a real person
-proving that the messages within the Bible are moral
-using nature to prove god's existence
-proving god's existence through claims that its existence is self-evident
-separating religion and science
-proving the existence of god by claiming that religion and science support each other
-proving god's existence through claims of spiritual experiences

...and the list goes on. What we have failed to see, from any and all theists, is quantifiable data, recorded observations or testable experiments.

[Faith No More]

I'd rather debate him than you.  At least he doesn't move the goalposts with every fucking post.

I don't feel like going and digging it up, but the thread where I asked you how it makes sense to talk about before time existing. Every post was you responding to pointless details and ignoring the original point. You ended up talking about how the Bible mentions relativity, or some such nonsense.

I stopped responding because you never addressed my main points and seemed to be continuing the argument due to the fact that you started it and were too proud to admit you were wrong.

[Jesster]

I would like to add that the attitude of the theists in this thread illustrates why I'm no more convinced now than I was before I registered my account here. They add nothing to the existing arguments.

[Faith No More]

When you touch the Absolute, you know it absolutely. I'm not trying to be obscure. It's just something that isn't easy to describe and when people try it just ends up sounding trite or contradictory.

You should probably get that checked out by a doctor.

[Athene]

IMO, the most convincing arguments, or rather, least unconvincing, have come from deists who don't claim specific knowledge of any specific God. If God were, or is real, I don't believe ANY human could possibly know the first thing about Him/Her/It/....or whatever.

Deists generally don't believe they stand to gain a goddamned thing as result of their beliefs, so, I view their 'arguments' as slightly more compelling than the average theist's; if for no other reason, then the fact that there typically isn't any raw need, fear, warm fuzzies, or wishful think attached. 'Cause let's face it: You've just gotta consider motivation.

Particularly, in absence of indisputable FACTS.

[Neo-Scholastic]

When you touch the Absolute, you know it absolutely. I'm not trying to be obscure. It's just something that isn't easy to describe and when people try it just ends up sounding trite or contradictory.

You should probably get that checked out by a doctor.

I'm sorry you feel the need to invalidate the experiences of others.

[SuperSentient]

I am sure you have heard some arguments for theism, maybe theists are convinced that they fulfill a burden of proof. 

Despite the problems these arguments may have, which one stands out the most to you?

I commonly hear atheists claim that the teleological argument, as terrible as it may be, is the most convincing of all theist arguments.

I personally think the Kalam Cosmological Argument is the #1.

Certainly not any of the first mover arguments.  The problem being that the immediate question, is then what caused the first mover?  Reformulating everything that exists must have a cause as everything that begins to exist must have a cause does not help as it begs the question by creating the category of things which have always existed occupied only by the thing to be proved, thus assuming god in its proof of god.  Furthermore,  even if the first mover arguments managed to prove a first mover, that would not prove the existence of a being anything like the one theists like to imagine as God.  Such a being might not not even be sentient let alone all powerful, interested in people, or still existing in order to either have always existed or to be a first mover.

I can say that the first mover had no cause (never began to exist). This argument doesn't assume god at all and doesn't beg the question. Part of the KCA is to deduce characteristics by logical analysis of the properties of this cause, so the argument demonstrates this first cause is uncaused, personal creator, beginningless (eternal), timeless, spaceless, changeless (immutable), immaterial, and powerful. 

There is also a problem with the premise that everything that begins to exist must have a cause.  That is that with the possible exception of subatomic particals, we've never seen matter or energy come into existence, we've only seen matter and energy change form.  A baby for example begins to exist as anot organized collection of matter, but the baby is formed of preexisting matter, so too everything else we see.  So we have no reason to assume that the existence of matter or energy requires a cause only the current form matter and energy.

This is true and is a working objection, matter and energy would have began to exist in the beginning of the universe, so to say that whatever comes into existence requires some external cause of some kind is to say a lot. We don't even know if the universe began to exist, which is why I sometimes hesitate to talk about the big bang as the beginning of all existence. 

The teliological argument is better only in that it at least attempts to use empirical evidence, and does not attempt to define god into existence.  However, as people readily see the difference between designed objects made by people, and some animals like birds or beavers and natural objects like trees for the simple reason that they do not appear designed greatly undercuts the premise.  That evolution describes how a tree might have evolved is a further, but not necessary blow to the teliological argument. Essentially it is an argument from ignorance, and a showing of ignorance does not overcome that essential hurdle.

Its basis is faulty, but I wouldn't say that concluding design from observation is inherently ignorant as opposed to random natural processes. It is just another explanation. It may be simpler to state that life is designed as opposed to explaining random natural processes, but accepting an explanation over another simply because it is more complicated to explain would be a fallacy. Also, design need not be from God, in fact, that may be a farfechted conclusion even if we are to suppose that certain features of the universe are designed.

Anecdotal stories are the closest thing there is to proof of god.  But they fall far short of what would be required to demonstrate god by any definition of god espoused by theists.

You mean the argument from miracles?

---

IMO, the most convincing arguments, or rather, least unconvincing, have come from deists who don't claim specific knowledge of any specific God. If God were, or is real, I don't believe ANY human could possibly know the first thing about Him/Her/It/....or whatever.

Deists generally don't believe they stand to gain a goddamned thing as result of their beliefs, so, I view their 'arguments' as slightly more compelling than the average theist's; if for no other reason, then the fact that there typically isn't any raw need, fear, warm fuzzies, or wishful think attached. 'Cause let's face it: You've just gotta consider motivation.

Particularly, in absence of indisputable FACTS.

Are you saying that the identity (as a deist or religious person) of the person impacts the strength of their arguments or that the deist god (as different as it may be from all the other religions) is more supported by what we know than the religious gods?

[AceBoogie]

Let's be honest here, if even a bit rude.

Theists, at this current point in time, have no convincing arguments. It all comes down to faith or personal experience. That's why they have to do petty things like debate the definition of atheism and argue semantics until the sun goes down and then some. They want to put us on the defensive so they don't have to defend their own arguments.

At the end of the day, most of us, as atheists are simply saying, "We don't buy your story and we're willing to admit we don't have the answers."

And that drives the theists crazy. That's why they want to convince us that we are responsible for explaining down to the very last detail why we don't buy into their story. It's like a salesman who follows you home after you refuse to buy the car he was just trying to sell you. Sure, you were in the market for a car you just didn't buy his particular sales pitch. So he follows you home and demands that you explain yourself. It's sad.

[Amarok]

I'm sorry you feel the need to invalidate the experiences of others.

I'm sorry you think your  supposed "experience "means diddly in a thread about evidence