Do you believe in free will?

[The Omnissiunt One]

However free will seems absolutely obvious to me and I don't see how we can explain it away therefore I conclude that the naturalistic world view is incorrect because it fails to properly explain the data of our existence and can't account for free will which seems quite undeniable. I don't think the arguments provided really do anything to do away with free will.

Your belief proves nothing. You cannot be aware of the absence of outside forces subconsciously determining your choices. That's why they're subconscious; you don't know whetehr they're there or not.

Yes you do have theories about these things but unfortunately none of them work. You say life arouse naturally by pure matter with no intelligent guidance and yet you cannot recreate an intelligent experiment to create life.

So? We may be able to one day. We may not. That neither legitimises the position 'Life can't arise from non-life', nor 'God exists'. At best, we'll conclude that we can't produce life from non-life. God is a non-sequitur.

Multi-verse is a nice theory except it has absolutely no evidence to support it because it's nothing more then speculation.

It has one major advantage over God: we know universes can exist. We don't know that disembodied, all-powerful minds can exist.

These are topics for another discussion but the point is you don't have a naturalistic explanation you have nothing more then wishful theories that have not proven conclusive in any of those cases.

Unlike God, then. You're entirely inconsistent. You say that we can't make conclusions on the answer to these questions, but you do so yourself.

Aren't you doing the same thing by saying free will is an illusion and trying to explain away the perfect fine tuning of the universe by saying well there's an infinity of universes out there that we just can't see. God as well as multiple universes would both be beyond our universe and beyond our ability to study scientifically so your using pure faith on that one.

First, show why fine tuning, if it exists at all, requires an explanation more than, say, fine tuning for the existence of comets. The argument is anthropocentrism at its best, as it presupposes that life is significant.

Again I think your backwards, you are the one trying to force the evidence into a naturalistic conclusion when it simply can't be done because you are certain that matter is all there is. Yet when matter can't explain phenomenons such as love, beauty, truth, free will, morality etc. you simply say these things aren't real. I guess it makes sense that you don't believe in a God that you can't see or hear since you don't even believe in common sense realities such as free will.

'Matter can't explain love, beauty, truth, etc.' Evidence, please. Love is a bio-chemical phenomenon which evolution produced to make us faithful to one partner. Sterile, but true. Truth is simply when our ideas correspond accurately with the outside world. Beauty is just a reaction to the world, and is fairly subjective. Free will... well, you assume it exists. I believe it does too, but we could easily deny it.