What's your best argument for God's existence?

What? Presume..... to treat a statement as a fact.... you are being semantic, and focusing on the specific phrasing, when, in general - presume means to treat a statement as a fact, and this is usually the case for the sake of a conversation or standard. Your logic that, "You never said that - that means there's no way that's what you meant!" Is a non-sequitur, your premises do not logically follow to your conclusion. I could have very well meant it without saying it specifically - in fact - you can look by the fact that I literally explained what I meant right after as proof that I meant that.

No with presumptions you accept the possibility of being wrong when stating something as fact that’s not the case.

The best argument for God's existence is that all atheist arguments are contingent on refuting a God that no one who is theologically educated believes.

That is not even what we're talking about! We treat something as a fact, we are presumming it to be true, you can state something as a fact and be wrong - it goes that a presumption is a something we are saying is not proven, but we are claiming it to be a fact for further argument. A presumption and a fact are different, just as "state as a fact" and fact are different.

What? Do you have any idea what your talking about, the reason we have to presume something as a fact, is because it isn't one.... And look! My core theory was correct, you are trying to get my words to make it seem like I agree that morality is objective! It was only a matter of time, how about this, you relook through the arguments here, and actually comprehend what I'm saying - Just because something is presumed that does not mean it is true, just because something is "stated as a fact" that does not mean it is a fact.

No but it means it’s also stated as objective.

Yes, "STATED AS" not that it is, there is a clear distinction you aren't getting

If you’re gonna accuse me of saying things that I didn’t say then at the very least you can do is quote me when did I ever say that it is.

What? I never claimed you said anything, I am saying that whenever you said "Stated as objective" (Post #158) that doesn't matter much, because something being stated as doesn't mean that it is objective, you've gone in circles at this point.

If I’m “not getting” it then that implies that I always see it as fact when I made it clear that I know that’s not always the case, It does matter because it applies to you, making your stance contradictory for example if you’re making a moral claim that means by definition of affirm your stating it as fact, if you’re stating it as fact you’re also stating it as objective, so with that being said you should believe morality to be objective just based on the definition of affirm. What you’re not getting is the distinction isn’t the point, the point is if you state something as objective you should believe it to be so regardless of whether or not your right or wrong otherwise what’s the point of stating it?

Lmao! I was exactly correct with my prediction, I don't think I've ever been so spot on with those before

You have literally no idea what your talking about: "The principles that affirm morality" That mean the principles which people say are fact in order to claim that morality is true are subjective. You clearly don't get the distinction there is no contradiction in what I'm saying, I'm saying I presume x or y to be true in order to use this or that morality - I simply recoognize that this morality is not based on objective truth, it is based on this or that prinple which aren't technically true, especially not morally - I am pressuming them because we are human so it applies, not because its true, this entire thing has been you trying to say "gotcha" and being so bad at it, that I called your game tens of posts earlier. Your arguments are so loose and fluid that half of them red herrings and the other half are non-sequiturs or false equivalences. 

The terms fact and subjective should never be used in the same sentence in that context because facts are objective.

You have ignored the entire argument, address what I was saying or no dice. You are incorrect, what the sentence said was, "which people say are fact" not that they are indeed fact. Those are assertions. I have explained this so many times, the next time you ignore it, I'll count how many times I've said it and you've ignored it. 

What they actually are isn’t the point, it’s what you believe and it makes no sense to believe morality is subjective if you say a moral claim is a fact.

The fact that you are having an experience is proof that there is some form of existence. That is, reality as it is perceived.

If there is a reality as it is perceived, there must be an ultimate reality.

The Ultimate Reality is God.

What other proof do you need? 

Look - you clearly aren't getting it: Subjective are things that are "dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence" - I am constructing an argument for morals using a claim which is subjective, just treating it as if it was objective. I know it's subjective, but in order to get morals I use it as an objective. Its not like there aren't any facts involved, but the link between the claim and morality is subjective, the claim itself is a fact. Morals are complicated and its become apparent to me that aren't really aware of that, and can't think beyond the basics in terms of morals. So actually - yes - morals can be subjective and treated as fact, are they technically "fact" well yes, because objective and fact aren't the same thing.

The ultimate reality that you and I see must be very different, because the ultimate reality is the universe, nothing more

Then you have a pantheistic conception of God.

Morals are technically fact? Well then I guess we’ve reached an agreement I rest my case.

Morals aren't objective and your semantics are not appreciated, you are a joke.

Nope, that's not a thing, as the pantheistic notion of god (which isn't what pantheistic means, I have a pantheist friend and he believes in multiple gods) is still an agent, which the universe does not. Spinoza's god isn't a god, just the universe, its semantics. Nothing more

You're wrong... just deliberately. Moral statments are technically "facts" in the same way that laws are morals. Technically if we all agree it can be treated as a fact, or as logically necessary, but it definitely isn't objective, and the moral statement is relative at best.

Immoral laws aren’t moral, try again otherwise have a nice day.

Well, regardless, pantheism is the identifying of the universe as the ultimate reality, or God. That doesn't necessarily deny the existence of lesser gods. Does not necessarily imply monotheism.

Classical pantheists were not monotheists. Rather, they deified forces of nature and such.

That has no relation to anything I said, from certain perspectives - something could be immoral, from others it could be moral - the same thing applies to laws. Why don't you try again

If the universe is as I see it, then there would be no qualifer for calling it "god" the only justification would be to equate the universe with god, but that makes no sense unless the spinoza's god also has a mind, which isn't what I believe, so no, I am not.