crystal skull, like he ones from Indiana Jones (yes, they're real). They have no tool marks

ive seen the skull (there are more, but only 1 green one that is usually used for these subjects.)

there are no tool marks because it was polished by hand.
because of the natural unregular movement of the hands. all tool marks have been polished of over the years it was polished.

today we use the same principle in many factory's. but then whit these and vibrations.

When people are speaking of something like god, then you cant demand evidence. What did atheist expect? some guy with a white beard coming and throwing lighting balls? God is something that cant be proven and nor disproved. So if the topic was made solely to get evidence on the subject, then it can as well be deleted, since no evidence will occur

The purpose of this thread was to see if anyone could establish a valid argument whose conclusion was that God exists, not to see if anyone had evidence for God's existence.
As far as evidence for God's existence is concerned, we may as well wait around for a big bearded guy that controls thunder and lightning as this is as good an idea as any we have about what sort of "evidence" would point to God's existence - if evidence exists, we have no idea what form it would take.

So away from talk of evidence, and back to any valid arguments if anyone can suggest any.

The crystal skull argument is more interesting as one can understand the analogy between the skull implying a maker (due to it clearly having been designed and having some order/purpose (whatever that may be, it doesn't matter)) and elements of "design" in the universe implying a maker (God). Hume rejected this sort of argument as it rests upon the false presupposition that design, order and purpose can only come from a maker/designer. We see many examples of design/order/purpose in the universe (e.g. the regular movement of the planets around the Sun) which are clearly not due to any designer or creator.
The elements of design and order we see all around us are more than likely caused/explained by a number of things other than a creator (for example, design in the human body can be explained by evolution, regularity in planetary movement can be explained by laws of physics etc. etc)

The earth is the right distance away from the sun, if the moon was 50,000 miles away from the earth instead of 250,000, (as i recall) then the earth would be flooded 3 times a day, the earth has just the right thickness of the ozone layer, trees for air, all of this; and you think that it's stupid and illogical to think that it could have possibly have been made on purpose, you say it makes so much more sense that it just happened.

All these things about the position of the Earth etc. which make it a habitable planet have nothing to do with the existence of God. There are certain conditions which need to be met in order for life to be sustained, and the Earth happens to be (probably not the only) planet in the universe which has these conditions. It is because of this that we can even contemplate the idea that God put the Earth where it is, not that God put it there so we can contemplate.

No-one thinks it's stupid or illogical that it could have been made on purpose, but it is smart and logical to view the universe through a scientific mind and you'll soon see that the Earth being a life-harbouring planet is no more or less amazing or God-inferring than winning the lottery! It's all about chance (granted the chances of winning the lottery are much higher, but it's all a numbers game - at what point do the numbers get big enough and the chances small enough that we forget all about probabilities and start creating deities?)

Mass belief /= logical. The very idea of a figure which violates all natural things...is pretty much the definition of illogical.

Not if the idea is based on that the very natural things was created by it.

Yes we can. And no one can give it. Which is a very good reason to not believe in it...

If no one can disprove it either, then there is also a reason to believe it.

And you see nothing wrong with blindly believing in something which you believe dictates every little bit of the world and say you cannot find any reason to believe it?

I say I believe in god, but I never mention what kind of god I believe, so you cant assume I believe in a god you described.

See? You just rejected or accepted my random insertions. I never gave any evidence for them. 

If I cant prove them wrong, then I just judge. I don't assume they all wrong because no evidence was delivered, since the claims was something that couldn't be disproved nor proven. 

There's no evidence of disproving fairys, asfha;sjfk, or whatever else I can make up. Why don't you believe in them?

I don't want to believe in them, but if somebody else believes in them, then I wouldn't try to convince them not to, since I cant disprove them. I think it would be directly rude if I tried to convince them not to believe in them.
If something cant be disproved, then they are free to believe it as much they want.

For the same reason we don't accept numerous other claims without evidence. Not accepting a claim until shown otherwise gives us a default position to work from. Otherwise we can be left accepting all sorts of wild baseless claims.

You don't need to accept them, you can just know them. This way you can be sure that knowledge don't disappear.

and the Earth happens to be (probably not the only) planet in the universe which has these conditions.

the kepler satelite has found over. 50 million planets in the habital zone whitin our milky way. of wich atleast 47 sofar also meet the other conditions. (excluding earth)
the only problem is, is that the closest found sofar is about 300 light year away.
so even if we could travel light speed and went there tomorrow.
it still takes 300 year for us to arrive...

If no one can disprove it either, then there is also a reason to believe it.

No. It just means there is no reason not to, which isn't quite the same. But most deities can be actually disproven using the lore and myths the religion is based on. Only deities which aren't precisely defined cannot be disproven.

Answer me this question: when you look around and see this world, and ponder about how it came to be, why does it have to be an unnatural cause? There's no reason to think it had to be a deity, so why do you think so?

I say I believe in god, but I never mention what kind of god I believe, so you cant assume I believe in a god you described.

discribe your god plz.

If I cant prove them wrong, then I just judge.

on what do you make your judgement?
(there is nothing more then a word to judge on)

since I cant disprove them. I think it would be directly rude if I tried to convince them not to believe in them.

would you still not try to convince him if he was threading to kill you for his believes?
or do you think: i can't disproof it so it's oke that he kills me for that idea.

(btw why didn't you reply on me. =( )

Answer me this question: when you look around and see this world, and ponder about how it came to be, why does it have to be an unnatural cause? There's no reason to think it had to be a deity, so why do you think so?

It doesn't need to be unnatural cause. I use god to explain what is beyond observation. I am not denying facts or science.

discribe your god plz.

sorry I cant, English isn't my first language, so it gonna be very hard for me to explain the way I believe in god.

on what do you make your judgement?
(there is nothing more then a word to judge on)

Since it something that haven't evidence, you have to judge it the same way people judge what is right and what is wrong.

would you still not try to convince him if he was threading to kill you for his believes?
or do you think: i can't disproof it so it's oke that he kills me for that idea.

I ask him why he want to kill me, remember I may not be able to disprove hes god, but I may be able to disprove the reason he want to kill me. Since he will drag the situation to something explainable and disprovable. Allot of things about human and its action can be explained, so I find no reason why I shouldn't convince him. In the other hand god is something we cant prove wrong, so I don't see the reason why we should try to convince them that god doesn't exist.   

(btw why didn't you reply on me. =( )

sorry about that, I don't know why, but for some reason I cant see all the posts.

those that make the claim that god exists have to give proof for their claim. it's not up to other people to disproof it.

They don't need to. The only one who have the burden to prove/disprove something, is the one who try to convince other people. And in many cases atheist are trying convince people who believe in god, which means atheists have to disprove god.

if they can't even give proof for their claims then why should we even try to disproof it? there is nothing to disproof to begin whit.

exactly, which means there is no need for a debate or a discussion in that subject. As I said before, no evidence will occur from any side. People who believe in god, can believe in god and those who don't, don't need to. And problem solved.

It doesn't need to be unnatural cause. I use god to explain what is beyond observation. I am not denying facts or science.

I'm not saying that you're denying facts, I'm just wondering why you use a deity for that. Because let's be honest: it doesn't give any more answers. Instead of "it somehow happened", you have "god somehow did it". You still don't know how it came to be but you get a fake feeling of knowledge by being able to claim that someone did it. Why do I say fake? Because if a deity did it, there's no way to understand how it happened exactly. If it happened by natural causes, we can examine it.

you have to judge it the same way people judge what is right and what is wrong.

i judge right and wrong from the cause and effect it's connected whit. i can't do that from a word alone.

how do you judge "asfha;sjfk" ?

I ask him why he want to kill me, remember I may not be able to disprove hes god, but I may be able to disprove the reason he want to kill me. Since he will drag the situation to something explainable and disprovable.

so do we when we ask where in the "bible" god is proven. since most of them say the proof for god is in the bible. then we are disproving the bible. whit effect that we disproof their "proof" for a god.

The only one who have the burden to prove/disprove something, is the one who try to convince other people.

i try to help them stop believing in care bears. how can i ever disproof it if they never came up whit proof for their claim?
what about the claim can i disproof if their is no proof?
where is the logic in believing something whitout proof?

if someone tells you he believes in care bears. don't you think that is complete bollocks and that you should try to help him. to get those ideas out of his head?

exactly, which means there is no need for a debate or a discussion in that subject.

there is, the fairy tales that come whit these god thing's. are used for violents and irrational opinions.
that is the reason for lots of unneeded problems.