Atheists, what do you believe is the best argument for the existence of a deity?

[theVOID]

Are you using faith and belief as synonyms? If that is the case I have to reject your notion.

Always do, there being no difference between them. And confidence and trust. The question is not if there is a difference between faith/confidence/trust/belief... it is simply 'how much' faith/confidence/trust/belief one has in something.

The words are interchangeable in many contexts, that doesn't mean they have the same use in all contexts, for instance;

Believing in someone, as in saying to someone who is facing a challenge "I believe in you" is the same as saying "I have confidence you can do this", it's not the same as saying "I believe you exist".

Asking a theist "why do you believe in God?" and getting the response "Because I have faith" would be a tautology if they were identical in meaning, the same as "Why do you believe in god?" and getting back "Because I believe in god" - The word Faith is trying to answer the why, the word believe is stating a matter of fact, this makes it clear that the word 'faith' is attempting to convey a different concept than the word 'believe'.

I could give dozens more examples, but these two are sufficient to demonstrate these words are not synonyms, even though they may be colloquially interchangeable in certain contexts.

Many people use faith alternately as God(s)-specific beliefs or belief in spite of a lack of evidence obtained by the scientific method. I don't bother

That's sort of more along the lines I was thinking, but not quite. It's hard to pin it down. This is precisely why I'm a big fan on the principle "replace the label with the concept", it makes arguing about definitions irrelevant - If we discuss what we mean when we say 'faith' and one of us means 'to believe in and trust something with responsibility' and the other means 'belief without evidence' we are talking about two different things, we may as well give them new labels.

So you don't believe in Metaphysical Naturalism... you accept it as a working explanation. You are waiting for a better one because it does not click right with you

No, it "clicks" with me just fine, I just don't see whether or not a concept clicks with me as being in any way relevant. Working explanation is sort of right, but I'm not waiting for a better explanation, I don't see it as being in any way insufficient or lacking as an explanation, It's simply one possible metaphysical position and happens to be the one I believe is most likely true.

I seriously question how it changes one knowledge in a thing to have that knowledge be correct or not. It's the same method, it's the same process, it's the same object... only difference is that one boils down to not be correct and the other quite so. Or rather never correct

I think the Agnostic/Gnostic distinction plays heavily in my definition of knowledge.

For instance, I believe I know (Gnosticism) that there is a Convenience store around the corner, I can only be said to truly know this if I am in fact correct, The difference between my actually Knowing or Believing is independent of my subjective experience, it depends on whether or not the Convenience store exists in objective reality. In contrast I believe in the multiverse but I do not claim to know this (Agnosticism), even if it turns out that the multiverse does exist I still did not have knowledge of it at the time.

This essentially places certain knowledge out of our reach with regard to anything but logical necessity, It's a rigid and rather extreme definition, but all other definitions of knowledge are so problematic that I'm willing to go out to the edge in order to have a term that I consider actually usable. I guess if you made a distinction between 'presumed knowledge' and 'true knowledge' you would get the same result.

No... not really. Brane theory is presented in such a way that it might be given some credence simply because of the big words used that make it sound somewhat credible. And a computer simulation seems too sensible to me: I practically live in the things as it is.

Brane theory has credence far beyond it's use of 'big words', You should look into a phenomenon known as 'dark flow', a great many galaxies seem to be attracted to the edge of the universe and there is a ton of data to suggest that unlike the rest of the universe in which galaxies are expanding away from each other, in one region they appear to be moving towards the same region - The most likely explanation for this at the present I believe is that there is another universe that has a gravitational influence on ours, there is also the fact that such a phenomenon was predicted by string theorists before the data was uncovered - This does lend credence to the idea of Brane theory and is unexpected given an alternative 'inflationary' multiverse. There is no currently proposed single-universe explanation for this phenomenon.

Indeed. The seagulls were playing with me today though... Playing. With. Me. I was throwing rocks at them, and they were having fun dodging them. And then I was having fun throwing them too.

This universe is so absurd. I still hate pigeons.

LOL.