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

[Faith No More]

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

Well, I'm sorry you lost your sense of humor.

[Nonpareil]

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

No one here is invalidating your experiences.

No one here has to. They come pre-invalidated.

As you yourself said, you can't even coherently express what these experiences were like to be so absolutely convincing, let alone actually establish that they are evidence in favor of the existence of a god rather than you just deluding yourself. Your claim to a personal experience with God is entirely unconvincing, and always will be, and is no more "valid" than someone who claims to have been kidnapped by aliens, or talked to the Buddha while high as a kite on peyote, or someone who claims to have been possessed by a demon.

People "experience" impossible things all the time. They see Bigfoot, or talk to aliens, or see ghosts. My own mother claims to have seen my deceased grandfather coming to visit me in my crib when I was a child. I dismiss that, too. It's nothing personal. It's just that her assertion of weirdness carries absolutely no weight at all, any more than yours does.

You had your experience. Good for you; no one can take that away. But don't expect anyone here to take your statements at face value, or to treat them as anything other than the nonsensical, unverified assertions that they are.

It's not an insult.

It's just the way skepticism works.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

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.

The most convincing and reasonable thing that I've heard from a theist was actually not in the form of any particular argument.  It was actually through a thoughtful discussion that I had with a close friend (he is very intelligent and is definitely mensa material) of mine who is a practitioner of Christianity.

About a year ago, my friend and I started getting interested in watching some of William Lane Craig's debates.  Interestingly enough, in my friend's opinion, he thought that the case for theism couldn't be made solely by reason/logic: in his opinion, at some point or another, the theist must rely on his or her faith.  Hence, my friend was very open in pointing this out, especially when we were discussing WLC's debates afterwards.

Now, on another occasion, we eventually started talking about what would change the other's mind in regards to god.  I admitted to him that given my agnosticism, if we ever encountered some type of god-like life-form, then how would we ever know that this is actually the life-form who is worshiped by his particular religion?  Or put another way, for those Star Trek TNG fans (we both enjoy Star Trek), how can we differentiate Q from a god, since IMO, Q could easily play the role of whatever deity that people can think up?  Hence, long story short, he openly stated that it would come down to his faith; however, he was open to and cool with the possibility that what he believed to be a god could also be seen as just another form of life (or whatever) by someone else.

Edit

Hence, I appreciated my friend's open-mindedness and his acceptance that different people will have their own way of interpreting reality (this extends beyond the mere conversations referenced above) and that his way isn't the only way, nor is it necessarily the best way.

[Nonpareil]

Incidentally, while I agree with Whateverist and other posters here in saying that I have never come across any arguments for the existence of gods that struck me as at all compelling, there was one bit of theistic logic that I did actually find quite interesting.

There is a series of science fiction novels by an author named Dan Simmons - The Hyperion Cantos. Think of it as The Canterbury Tales, but in space; a group of pilgrims are making a trip to a place called the "Time Tombs" to petition a godlike entity to grant various wishes of theirs, and each takes it in turn to tell the story of where they came from and what they are wishing for along the way.

One of these pilgrims is a Jew whose daughter has been "cursed", or inflicted with a disease, or something of that sort, which is causing her to age backwards. She's already been reduced to infancy, and he hopes that the entity they are traveling to see will be able to cure her of her condition before she dies. Along the way, he continually questions his own faith, focusing around the question he sees as being the heart of the Binding of Isaac: How could a loving father bring himself to kill his own child, and how could a good and just god ask a man to do this for them?

The ultimate conclusion that he reaches actually struck me as a very interesting little take on the story. The answer, he reasons, is in the very nature of the test. As most versions of the story tell it, God was testing Abraham.

As he figures it, Abraham was testing God.

Of course, it's not an argument in favor of God's existence or anything, but it struck me as a very neat and intelligent little take on the story anyway.

[masterofpuppets]

The most convincing argument I have come across is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Although its premises have not been demonstrated to be true, I can accept that "the universe must have a cause" is not a completely unfounded assertion. As far as we can tell, all events within our universe are government by cause and effect. The reason I do not accept the argument is that it assumes that (a) therefore the universe itself must have a cause, even though cause and effect is a property that can only be demonstrated to apply WITHIN our universe, and (b) that this cause MUST be a deity, when for all we know it could be a wormhole that leads to another universe.

Also, the premise that "the universe had a beginning" is not entirely correct. While the Universe had a TEMPORAL beginning, we cannot deduce that therefore the Universe had an absolute beginning. The Big Bang could have just been some kind of transition of the Universe. "Vacuum metastability event" is actually the term cosmologists use to describe a kind of transition that fundamentally alters the Universe, which results in drastic changes in the foundations of physical laws/constants, spacetime and matter.

[Mr Greene]

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. 

Except that it doesn't do that. It can be deduced that the first cause breaks the rules of causality,
that it existed outside space-time and was powerful. 
Everything else is sleight of hand.

[Alex K]

The Kalam argument is nonsensical.

[masterofpuppets]

The Kalam argument is nonsensical.

Yup, and actually all of the arguments for god are. To me, the Kalam argument is the most convincing in the sense that it's the least crappy. It's still crap.

[Alex K]

The Kalam argument is nonsensical.

Yup, and actually all of the arguments for god are. To me, the Kalam argument is the most convincing in the sense that it's the least crappy. It's still crap.

To me the fine tuning argument wins bc it at least has a chance of being consistent.

[Little Rik]

All of you are off track.
God is all about love.
Universal and spiritual love and love is not something that you can pass to other.
You got to build up with your own effort.
If you expect to find evidence about God the only way is to build love within.
All the rest will not do so by waiting for evidence somewhere other than your inner self is just a form of mental masturbation.  
A waste of time.