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

[Violet]

Oh really? Please, do enlighten me sir, I'd love to know what position you think it is I have faith in.

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

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.

---

---

Huh? I didn't say you had faith. I said faith is the only way belief in God is possible, considering the Christian position. Therefore arguments for material existence don't address that subject.

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

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.
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.)

---

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

[Epimethean]

That gets back to the design notion. If you want a god, why can't it be an absurdist?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm with Void and Min on the fine tuning angle. This argument at least has verifiable data that one can point to. It's not just word salad, there's meat here. Refreshing when you think about it.

That these observations do not lead to god as the conclusion is perhaps both the reason that it fails as an argument for god, and stands in as a much better argument against god (the judeo-christian concept of god specifically).

[Napoléon]

I actually don't see any good argument for a god at all. Any argument is all on the same par for me, due to the unprovable aspect of the conclusion of the argument: "God exists"

The only reasoning that people can use to justify a belief in god, is essentially that they WANT to believe in god.
The 'Don't you feel it in your heart?' argument is my favourite though, simply because it smacks of absolute logical insignificance. So what if you can feel 'something in your heart?'. It's not reason to believe in god unless you willfully want to accept it as such, which is choosing your own bloody reasoning to suit your own bloody preference.

An argument without evidence must at least rely on some reasoning, and the only reasoning you can find for believing in a god is that you want to. Whether the arguer consciously accepts that or not.

[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.

[Aindiachai]

I'd have to say that none of those theories would be convincing for me in terms of proving the existence of any god. Just because the "possibility" exists does not mean that it is probable. Even if the possibility of a god existed, it does not provide any sort of evidence for which god it is that could exist. Of any possible view of a god that I could even perceive as possible, it would have to be a deistic view. If that's the case, than it would mean a hands off approach, so than the existence of such a god would not matter. That would make the whole point of debating if such a god existed a waste. If you believe the said god exists than it doesn't matter and if you don't believe said god exists it doesn't matter. I find that the only instances in which an individual would have to provide a compelling argument is in the instance of a hands on god, which is what religion subscribes to. As far as a hands on god theory goes, the only thing that would convince me of the existence of such a god is irrefutable evidence that god played a role and on multiple occasions. All the theories about reality and how things exist in accordance with other things (string theory, etc.) does not play a role in how I view god. Regardless of if there are multiple universes, this universe is the reality that we experience. My experience has not yet provided me with any evidence to suggest that a god exists. Even if a god existed and there were multiple universes with different experiences in each universe, that would only disprove the gods of religions as it shows that they are not perfect. What other need would a god have for creating multiple universes with differing outcomes?

[theVOID]

Define 'diety' I have seen many differing descriptions many on this site. None had any argument in there favour that stood up to more than a pico seconds scrutiny.

In short I can think of no argument that could convince me of the existance of a deity, that doesnt mean that one doesnt exist I just havent seen it.

By deity I simply mean an "an immaterial intelligence that caused the universe". What attributes the deity has beyond intelligence and the ability to cause universes are besides the point.

I can't think of a specific argument that would persuade me either, what I can state rather clearly however is that I would believe in a deity if someone could demonstrate that a deity is the most likely explanation given the available evidence, for instance;

Everyone on earth suddenly receives a message from a deity informing us of his existence, each person receives precisely the same message at precisely the same time. What are possible explanations for this?

1. A deity really did communicate with us.
2. A mad scientist implanted chips into everyone's brain through the water supply or similar method.
3. All our brains are quantum entangled and this experience in one person's brain triggered the entangled particles to behave in the same way, causing the same experience in all of us.
4. It was a simple fluke
5. Some unknown explanation.

This event would cause me to up-shift the probability that a deity exists, that Global mind control is possible and that consciousness is inextricably linked, things that previously seemed unlikely and thus had low probabilities now have some relatively good evidence in their favour. Chance is extremely unlikely so we can essentially leave it aside. Suppose we manage to rule out 2 and 3, then I am left with a situation where I have to drastically up-shift the probability of it being a deity. I still cannot say that is is necessarily a God because that would be an argument from ignorance given 5.

If we can find more examples of phenomenon where the only known explanation was a deity then I would again up-shift my probability of a deity existing, eventually I would be left with a situation where, given the available evidence, a deity likely to exist (>50%) and I would then believe that a deity exists in the same way I now believe in Metaphysical naturalism as the most likely answer.

I don't think that resembles anything like theism, it's more along the lines of why DP and Cinjin believe in a deity.

[Kayenneh]

I'm with Ace on this one. I tried to come up with a decent argument for, but I can't. And Min has a point with the fine-tuning, it's somewhat fucked up

[fr0d0]

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?

Strange I posted a reply to this 8 hours ago. Shegone!

I would call that misplaced faith. Belief is based on false premise in those cases.

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

Belief in God is the most positive and productive world view.

---

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.

As we cannot know the answer to prayer the study of it is also absurd.

---

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"

---

Fine tuning then from a purely material POV. Correctly abstaining from teleology. But the subject of the thread is to propose a best argument for the existence of a deity??

[Epimethean]

"Belief in God is the most positive and productive world view."

Interestingly, it is also the most negative and destructive world view, so it comes up zed.