Play the Devil's Advocate

[Brometheus]

I thought this might be interesting. If you were in a debate class, and had to try to prove the existence of a super-powerful, creator deity, what would you consider the strongest argument on its behalf?

I'm not asking for an argument you personally believe in - but the one you feel, of all those available, is the least weak. For some, myself included, they may be strongest because I haven't got enough knowledge on the subject yet.

For myself, I'd side with Antony Flew and say the anthropic principle. You?

Humor me.

[AFTT47]

I'd probably say that the presence of information implies an intelligent designer. I would hate to have to defend that position though.

[dyresand]

Well....that is tough considering... he created everything slowly over time said it was good enough and pretty much doesn't care.

[Mudhammam]

Well, I guess I might go the route that something must be self-sufficient and that the universe is intelligible, so by weak induction we are justified in believing that a self-sufficient being that subsumes a supervening principle of intelligence must be the most basic entity of all, and furthermore, that it pervades all of time and space. (My deity would be inextricably connected to the cosmos).

[Aoi Magi]

My best bet would be a word-salad I guess. Combined with some baseless assertions and random testimonies would buy me some time. Otherwise I'd just have to bang on the point that science hasn't "disproven" god yet, and hope my opponents give up before losing sanity.

[Pizza]

I would most likely build a cumulative case. I would start with an argument for mind-body dualism to show mind without matter isn't a crazy idea, move to the contingency version of the cosmological argument, and finish off my case with the fine-tuning argument to give support to the "First Cause" being a mind. This aims to defend generic theism because Christian theism is an internally inconsistent mess; that is, I would have to come up with so many far fetched just-so stories to explain away contradictions in the Bible on soteriology alone. 

[Brometheus]

I'd probably say that the presence of information implies an intelligent designer. I would hate to have to defend that position though.

Stephen Meyer uses this as the premise of his argument in Signature in the Cell. He insists that information cannot self-create or compile on its own. However, considering that DNA exists, he'd have to prove the impossibility of it. However, I do wonder how the first strands of DNA decided that their information was important enough to pass along... I should read more about biology. My parents kept biology books from us kids - and I'm more of a physics guy... but, must read some biology. Recommendations anybody for a book which would explain the origin of DNA and cellular reproduction?

... random testimonies would buy me some time...

Testify!

[robvalue]

I think I would go with fine tuning. It's still hopelessly flawed, but it comes nearest to sounding convincing in my opinion.

[Norman Humann]

Ahem...

But what if you're wrong?!?!??!?!?!!1!

/theist

[jesus_wept]

I think I'd go with an argument from incredulity, and follow that with ray comfort's banana argument.