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

[Cyberman]

The only thing most of us are banding together on in this context is pointing out what a petulant baby you're being.

[Neo-Scholastic]

After those fleeting moments of numinous insight, sober reflection does not ask if those experiences are real, for that is to deny one's own reality; but rather, what they mean and live fully by rationally incorporating them into one's life.

Bullshit. Applying appropriate levels of skepticism to personal experience is a sign that you accept your human experience for what it is, flawed and imperfect. Anything else is a denial of what we know about the human condition. To be swayed by the numinous to Godly conclusions is just ignoring our greater knowledge of how such experiences fool us. That's the real denial.

I agree that people should, as you say, apply an appropriate level of skepticism. Indeed we are only human – prone to error and living in uncertainty. And as I said, YMMV. If your need for certainty is such that you feel compelled to question everything, including your own consciousness, then that is your path and I wish you only the best. For my part, I take most things as they appear to be until shown otherwise, have good reason to suppose otherwise, or unless they affect my life enough to make me question my instincts, everyday experience, and the general consensus of history and human experience.

[Huggy Bear]

Really? Keep telling yourself that, meanwhile y'all will come out of the woodwork to engage lil Rik...

You're reasoning like a kid with Aspbergers who doesn't have the first clue about why people do what they do.

The reasoning is pretty simple actually, Lil Rik is an easier target...

[Whateverist]

The Great Commission is to share the Good News of Jesus Christ - to  share to our own personal experience and point the many changed lives of others. Apologetics were never meant to convince non-believers to come to faith. That is the work of the Holy Spirit speaking through the sublime. Our God is a wounded God. His compassion was born of agony and injustice. He gives comfort and counsel to us in our times of need. The role of apologetics is just to demonstrate that the trust we put in the hope of our hearts is reasonable.

Many of you are not convinced. Similarly the skeptical objections are not persuasive. I see only various combinations of non-sequiturs and straw men. What remains, for me, is not some abstract 'argument from ignorance' but rather the abiding presence of an ineffable Other, the all-encompassing love that reaches out to me even though I deserve nothing. As John 4:19 says, we love Him because He loved us first. That is His invitation to all those who, like me and so many others, see beauty, knows compassion, and whose hearts cry out from the darkness.

Not that everyone is tuned into it as such but this atheist is more than happy to acknowledge the presence of an ineffable otherness within. I value its participation and inspiration at all times. It makes the world a more complex and also satisfying place to conceptualize an otherness within. Its happiness is key to my own. It tends to keep alienation at bay and provide a robust answer to existential questions. But I would never seek to write over what it has to offer with anything off the rack or which pretends to be authoritative. Only the mystery itself will do. I accept no substitutes, holy books included. That is an overly intellectualized approach for my taste, I'm willing to be more humble than that.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That says more about you than it does anyone else. And it's the opposite of flattering.

Say what you will, it's the truth...There should be absolutely no reason for atheists to band together on an argument when their position is demonstrably false and has nothing to do with religion...

Perhaps you could start another thread rather than hijack this one.

...this atheist is more than happy to acknowledge the presence of an ineffable otherness within.  I value its participation and inspiration at all times.  It makes the world a more complex and also satisfying place to conceptualize an otherness within.  Its happiness is key to my own.  It tends to keep alienation at bay and provide a robust answer to existential questions.

During your reflections have you ever felt the presence of Love coming from outside yourself?

 But I would never seek to write over what it has to offer with anything off the rack or which pretends to be authoritative.  Only the mystery itself will do.

I see 'holy books' as treasure trove of insights into how people from distant times and far away places what experienced and tried to make sense of that mystery. Yes, they often include various prohibitions and obligations, but those seem more like culture specific ways to attain and preserve that relationship with the source of that mystery. I realize that literal-minded people, believers and skeptics alike, don't take that approach. I find that very sad.

[Whateverist]

But YOUR god is a strawman. How can skeptical observations be persuasive, when what you believe is an emotional belief, not based in logic or reality?

In a particularly resonate line from the movie Rango - "No man can walk away from his own story." Everyone starts from their own experience. I believe it is right and proper for people to approach reality with their whole being. There is a place for logical analysis. But not when listening to Bach, staring out over the Ocean, reflecting on personal existence alienated from the a larger world that is wholly Other, or finding inexplicable peace hidden in crushing defeat and anguish. That is the human condition. No doubt, these have an emotional component but they also represent kinds of unmediated knowing - approaching reality on its terms and not our own. After those fleeting moments of numinous insight, sober reflection does not ask if those experiences are real, for that is to deny one's own reality; but rather, what they mean and live fully by rationally incorporating them into one's life.

But of course, YMMV.

[My bold.]

Fine but personally I wouldn't be so eager to plug such moments into the service of reinforcing conclusions arrived at in less inspired moments.

[Huggy Bear]

Say what you will, it's the truth...There should be absolutely no reason for atheists to band together on an argument when their position is demonstrably false and has nothing to do with religion...

Perhaps you could start another thread rather than hijack this one.

Nothing Is being Hijacked, first of all my first post was related to the subject.

Secondly,if you'd been paying attention all the atheists responded to the OP's question in the negative.

What is there left to discuss?

[Neo-Scholastic]

...,if you'd been paying attention all the atheists responded to the OP's question in the negative....What is there left to discuss?

I've noticed, too. Many are far less than critical of their own convictions than they are of ours.

[Whateverist]

The fact that one feels it necessary to argue for an "omnipresent" being is in itself convincing. Probably not in the manner you seek.

It probably takes one to know one, so lacking omnipresence myself I couldn't possibly verify that any other being had that quality.  It is very surprising how many theists one can find who find themselves up to the task though.

[Jenny A]

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.

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.

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.

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.