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

[Mister Agenda]

Plenty of skeptics practice meditation and other consciousness-expanding techniques and have incredible experiences. They just tend not to conclude that those experiences are coming from outside their own heads, no matter how much it may seem so; because they know that is a conclusion their internal experiences can't justify.

[Nonpareil]

The Kalam argument is nonsensical.

I understand the sentiment because it is a poorly constructed version of the Prime Mover, the First Way of Thomas Aquinas. As such it appears to beg the question, by stating a condition for beings (coming into being) then seems to make an exception for a being with the unique feature of not having come into being.  The missing premise that clarifies the demonstration is the continuum of existence from actual being to potential being.

For the purposes of comparison, the Kalam cosmological argument:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
   
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
   
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
   
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
   
5. Therefore, God exists.

And the First Way of Thomas Aquinas:

1. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that some things are in motion.
   
2. Now whatever is moved is moved by another.
   
3. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must needs to be moved by another, and that by another again.
   
4. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover: as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand.
   
5. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Both ultimately fail because their basic premise is bare assertion. The need for a cause can only be established to hold within the universe itself; asserting that there is a need for a cause for the universe itself is an unsupported assertion, and edges towards the fallacy of composition. This is entirely without getting into any issues with the specific formulations and the vocabulary that they choose to employ, and holds across every variation of the cosmological arguments. They may also get into other fallacies, like circular reasoning, but none of it actually matters.

Because the central premise is unsupported.

The argument is, thus, discarded.

[Jesster]

Whatever is moved is moved by another... oh except for this one thing over here.

[Athene]

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?

The latter. Inferences that are generally based on existing scientific knowledge are more plausible than those that are primarily based on religious hooey, as far as I'm concerned...even if only marginally. I would consider some deistic arguments for Intelligent Design to be 'better'  GUESSES, for that reason.

Not convincing, in my view to date. Just capable of generating a modicum of interest and/or momentary contemplation.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And the First Way of Thomas Aquinas:

1. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that some things are in motion.
   
2. Now whatever is moved is moved by another.
   
3. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must needs to be moved by another, and that by another again.
   
4. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover: as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand.
   
5. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
   

Both ultimately fail because their basic premise is bare assertion. The need for a cause can only be established to hold within the universe itself; asserting that there is a need for a cause for the universe itself is an unsupported assertion...

No premise in the 1W refers to the universe, does it? You're reading into the demonstration something that isn't there.

[masterofpuppets]

And the First Way of Thomas Aquinas:

1. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that some things are in motion.
   
2. Now whatever is moved is moved by another.
   
3. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must needs to be moved by another, and that by another again.
   
4. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover: as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand.
   
5. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
   

Both ultimately fail because their basic premise is bare assertion. The need for a cause can only be established to hold within the universe itself; asserting that there is a need for a cause for the universe itself is an unsupported assertion...

No premise in the 1W refers to the universe, does it? You're reading into the demonstration something that isn't there.

The argument ultimately concludes that phenomena within our Universe apply to the Universe as a whole. Things within our Universe need a first mover, and only things within our Universe. This first mover was the Big Bang. However, you cannot demonstrate that the Big Bang itself requires a first mover.

The argument ultimately fails because you can replace the last sentence with "this everyone understands to be the Big Bang" and actually come up with a better argument.

[Nonpareil]

No premise in the 1W refers to the universe, does it?

No. That's rather the point.

Aquinas' First Way's central premise is that all things that move must have a mover. This can only be demonstrated to hold within the universe, and cannot be shown to apply to the universe itself. If the argument is applied to the universe, as is the implication, it collapses; if it is applied only within the universe itself, it fails to establish that the first mover must be a deity rather than a natural force.

Either way, it fails.

[Whateverist]

I wonder how much the Aquinas argument really factors into Neo's own faith. I doubt if without it he'd be back in the atheist's camp. Likewise, it isn't likely to motivate anyone toward xtian faith who isn't already so motivated.

My own lack of xtian faith has nothing to do with any atheist literature, nor anything I've ever heard in a debate. For me, the idea of a 'supernatural' class of explanations is a non-starter. Same goes for 'omni' powers, an after-life and the whole idea of a creator as if natural systems require non-natural futzing in order to set them on their way. It is all just too absurd to take seriously in my opinion.

That doesn't mean the long history of religions should just go in the dust bin of history or filed under "mistakes". It is an interesting thing to try to understand. But in so saying, I recognize that it is only natural explanations which really count as an explanation as far as I'm concerned.

[Little Rik]

Ok. Okay.  
There is no God so this universe must have pop up as per magic.  
Oh, wait a minute.  
Magic is created by a magician isn't it?  
Let me ask Giacomino the elf who is this magician.  

Giacomino.........who is the magician?


Hmm,......LOGIC son....think and use LOGIC.......and you will know......

[Cyberman]

What the fuck are you on?