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

[theVOID]

Huh? I didn't say you had faith.

Sorry, I misunderstood you.

I said faith is the only way belief in God is possible

I'm not sure that's true, depending on how 'faith' is defined, it's not really a term that has been well defined, or at least has not had a good definition consistently applied by people who claim to posses it - In that sense I think the most pragmatic approach to the concept is to contrast it to being persuaded by an argument, see if you agree with this: Suppose someone believes that a God exists only because they were persuaded by an argument valid in form but was unaware that one of the premises was unsound, that person would believe in God but would not have 'faith' that a God existed.

It would be the same as being convinced that the rate of expansion of the universe was slowing down by an argument valid in form but with bad data, I would hardly say that this person had 'faith' in the slowing down of the expansion of the universe. Suppose however that this person believed the universe was slowing down in it's expansion not because of an argument, but because they had some profound sensory experience of the universe slowing down, an experience that is subjectively identical to experiencing a situation via the senses - This person could, I believe, be said to have 'faith' that the expansion of the universe was slowing down.

It's somewhat awkward in trying to reduce the concept to a sentence, but as far as the example is concerned would you generally agree with that?

Therefore arguments for material existence don't address that subject.

Can you clarify what you mean by that?

Perhaps that's how I come to the conclusion that fine tuning is perhaps the weakest argument for God's existence.

Interesting. Could you contrast it with an argument you believe is stronger?

IOW I could enter this discussion at the same level as non believers because there is no difference in my position to yours. But maybe you're right... at this current moment in time I would find a scientific study of God to be absurd. There really is no need to go beyond what science already proposes.

By and large I would too, aside from studying the supposed health effects of prayer.

But let's be clear, I did not make any kind of scientific argument, I made a philosophical argument. Only two of the possible explanations that I listed has any kind of scientific support at all, primarily Inflation and Brane Theory (though the evidence for this is much weaker, see "Dark Flow").

Assuming dysteleology (no purpose or goal) is a metaphysical position and not subject to observation or scientific demonstration. When a divine hand cannot be observed through scientific methods, that is insufficient reason to conclude that a divine hand does not exist or is not active. A scientific viewpoint therefore shouldn't draw dysteleological conclusions. (paraphrase of John H Walton - The Lost World of Genesis One.)

How exactly is any of that relevant? I am talking about possible explanations for the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, some of which do not propose any telos. That quote would be applicable if I had stated that 'any scientific propositions in which telos is not necessary necessarily has no telos' (which would be analogous to saying that 'because bumper stickers are not necessary parts of a car, cars necessarily have no bumper stickers'), but I suggested nothing at all like that - What I said put simply is "God is a possible explanation for the apparent fine-tuning of the universe but because there are many other possible explanations for this phenomenon we cannot conclude that God is the cause"

---

Metaphysical Naturalism... if you believe it is true. Without faith, you cannot know. To know 'God': you must have faith.

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

When I say I believe in Metaphysical Naturalism I am saying that I believe Metaphysical Naturalism is the position that is most likely true given the available evidence, I will defend the position intellectually as a tentative truth until such time as I am persuaded otherwise. I don't know if you would consider that my having 'faith' in metaphysical naturalism, it to me lacks substantial parts of what makes something 'faith', having a trust in or personal connection with that which you believe.

Also, you already know I think your definition of knowledge is useless so what is it you mean when you say "Without faith, you cannot know"? Because to me faith is absolutely irrelevant in determining whether or not something you believe counts as your having knowledge of that thing.

The best argument for the existence of a deity is a joint argument... how depraved the humor of reality appears to be combined with my absurd luck. Absurdity of reality proposes an absurd answer... and as an atheist: a god or gods seems to be absurd. So the best argument for a deity is not the chances of it, it is not how perfectly everything fits, it is not because we can't explain things, it is not because it seems sensible, it is not because love is apparent in the universe, it is not because because the world seems intelligently designed, it is not because tradition dictates it so...

It is because it is fucking ridiculous. Which puts it on par with the universe.

Interesting idea You should try make a syllogism out of it.

I think Brane theory or computer simulation theory are in the same general league of absurdity as God If the 'Dark Flow' hypothesis turns out to be correct however I will have to upshift the probability of Brane Theory substantially.

Few things would be so ridiculously absurd as trying to find scientific evidence of a thing that is not scientific.

So someone who said such a thing is a potential cause of the universe! That is after all markedly absurd.