Why most arguments for God prove God.

[WinterHold]

I think you are having a crisis of faith, MK.  Are you trying to convince us or yourself.  If us, you're wasting your time.  If yourself, don't let the mullahs know or they will stone the fuck out of you.

You are really fucked up lately.

That's desperation. It's a problem that some Theists (especially Muslims) face when they deal with others -I faced it too; did it too-, they call for their religions, nobody understands, then the missionaries get desperate.

Depending on the level of desperation, the reply comes. In some cases it's a forum comment, in other cases it's a stabbing frenzy, in an other sever case it's suicide bombing.

Good people advice me to grow thicker skin, mystic should do the same.
Belief in God makes sense at most times to the person only. Others are not required to believe by the beauty of the word.

[Mystic]

 If us, you're wasting your time. 

I don't give up on anyone.

[vorlon13]

Um . . .


MK, you didn't prove the existence of the Abrahamic God, you proved the existence of Baneemy.

Way to go . . . .

[Fake Messiah]

5.  Everything requires a reason/explanation.
God is the only explanation that explains itself.
Therefore God exists.

This is as false as you can get. While we can define most of the stuff like mountains, lakes, grass etc. there is no definition of god. What constitutes god? If Julius Cesar called himself god who is to say he is not? Or more recently David Shayler. Some even say that everybody is god, so when it comes to gods literally anything goes.

[LastPoet]

 If us, you're wasting your time. 

I don't give up on anyone.

Just yourself.

[Cyberman]

All these arguments make sense to me.

That says more about your gullibility than any gods.

What about these arguments:

(1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

(1) If there is no God then we're all going to not exist after we die.
(2) I'm afraid of that.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) I believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

(1) See this bonfire?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

(1) Ha ha ha.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

and I haven't even scratched the surface.

What makes your arguments better than, or at least different to, any of these?

[SuperSentient]

If God exists, then it's no strange thing that there would be good arguments proving his existence.

Unlike a unicorn that can exist in some universe or planet we have no idea about, that cannot be proven, God can be proven in many ways. And this expected if creation has relationship with it both spiritually and ontologically.

All arguments that prove God:

1.

Perfection must exist to be defined (different than fully known). 
Perfection is defined.
Therefore Perfection exists.

Premise 1 and 2 are false. Perfection is not defined and it doesn't have to exist to be defined. 

2. If we are not perceived, we do not have an exact value.
The only thing that can see us exactly as we are is perfect judging perception.
We have an exact value.
Therefore God exists.

Premise 1 is problematic since it takes subjective perception and assumes that value judgments are objectively true from that. Premise 2 is a bare assertion that is meaningless in this case. Premise 3 is false since value is dependent upon a subjective agent. Also, Premise 4 doesn't logically follow since it assumes that our conception of value has a outer personal foundation. 

3. Our actions are inherited to us.
The only who can cause us to inherit our actions is a perfect judge.
Therefore a perfect judge exists.

This argument assumes inheriting something requires an external judge, which is an unfounded assumption.

4. If a hypothetical creator can create goodness/morality from nothing, then it would be arbitrary.
If it was arbitrary, it could be anything the Creator wanted it to be.
Morality cannot be anything a hypothetical Creator wants it to be.
Therefore Morality is Eternal.
Morality requires perception.
Therefore Eternal Perceiver of Morality exists.

Morality actually wouldn't be arbitrary if the standard monotheist conception of God had morality grounded in it since God is immutable. 
Premise 4 is unfounded here since it assumes a specific nature of morality (that it is objective). I would agree with premise 5, but you have to demonstrate that morality is actually eternal rather than start from a hypothetical creator.

5.  Everything requires a reason/explanation.
God is the only explanation that explains itself.
Therefore God exists.

Premise 1 is unfounded. We don't know what all exists and what exists without explanation. Even if something could conceptually explain itself, it wouldn't necessarily in reality.

6. Love speaks an eternal exalted language.
That Eternal exalted language has no limits to potential.
All potentials of love must have a basis.
The basis must be highest form of love.
Love is real.
Therefore God exists.

Premise 1, 2, 3, and 4 is unfounded. We attribute love to chemical reactions that form what we call emotional states, but to give this feeling a supernatural meaning has been done all throughout human history and the same rationale gave rise to religion, and is quite common to do. To say it is this way has never been justified and lacks adequate justification.

7. Existence is a perfection.
 God is defined to be All-perfect.
Therefore he must by definition exists (another way to look at is that perfection itself would not be defined without God's existence).

This commits the same fallacy the mainstream ontological arguments do. It starts from how we conceive and define God and holds that since we see it that way, it must be that way, simply defining something into existence or truth. 
Premise 1 is false. Perfection is a value statement and bare assertion.

[Astreja]

If God exists, then it's no strange thing that there would be good arguments proving his existence.

None of them are good enough for me.  Not one.

I require a direct physical encounter with a god-like being.  I will not compromise on this point.

[masterofpuppets]

I think MysticKnight's arguments, and this thread in general, really demonstrate how God is nothing more than the label we attach to our ignorance and gaps in knowledge. God isn't even well defined, and even if it were, it would still mean different things to the billions of people who believe in it. For some it's the creator of the universe, for others it's a personal friend, and yet for others it's a moral judge. Based on this I think we are tending towards the conclusion that there are no gods, especially because the word "god" literally means a million things in this day and age.

I think you should rename your thread to "why most arguments for God prove God exists only in the mind".

[Cyberman]

These ludicrous logical leapfrog games don't actually "prove" much beyond a need to reinforce what a person already wants to be true. Taken objectively and critically, they wouldn't be convincing to anyone who wasn't already convinced. It's little more than mental masturbation - a pleasant way to kill five minutes but hardly likely to rock someone else's world.

I suggest "why most arguments for God prove how desperate some people can be to prove God exists" as a more accurate title.