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

[theVOID]

Atheists, what do you believe is the best argument for the existence of a deity? And why do you believe it is still insufficient for belief in a deity?

For me it's the likelihood of the "fine-tuned" universe, I put fine-tuned in quotes because the phrasing presupposes tuning, but the general idea that the universe is one within a narrow set of constraints that would permit a universe like the one we live in to exist. Given the number of possible universes the chances of any one configuration being existent is very low, a deity is a possible explanation for why the universe has these certain values for it's fundamental constraints.

Why do I believe this is still not good enough for believing a deity exists? Because it is only one of many possible explanations and amongst them it's one of the more implausible ones , explanations such as:

1. Chance. The universe just happens to have these fundamental constraints and the existence of any one set of constraints is no more likely than any other, regardless of the outcome. To presuppose that this set of constraints is somehow more valuable is to give human values some unwarranted cosmic mandate.

2. Not-so-constant-constants. With the suggestion that the Fine structure constant is not actually a constant it makes it possible that the outcomes of physical law could vary depending on which region of the universe you are in, that essentially means that the constraints which are compatible with biological life may be context dependent within this one universe, some regions of space have the conditions to support life and others do not - This essentially nullifies the "fine-tuning" problem, or at least shifts the question to "Why is this corner of the universe compatible with life?".

3. Cosmic Evolution. This is essentially the idea that Universes produce other universes that vary slightly from their parents, whether through spatial regions on the other side of black holes (the hypothetical "White hole") or through a cyclical "Big crunch" model. If this is the case we are simply the residents of a universe that has been evolving from other "stable" universes, the inherent stability of the universe and it's ability to create events that could spawn other universes being the "selection pressure", methodologically similar to Darwinian natural selection.

4. Brane theory. The conclusion of M-theory, we are but one universe in a multi-verse of a potentially infinite number of other universes. While I personally find this explanation unattractive and rather "obese" in the quantity of entities that must be proposed for it to exist it is none the less a possible cause.

5. Inflation. The mathematical model of Inflation predicts that during the big bang various regions of space-time emerged separately from each other, like when you blow a bubble and instead of a single entity you find a cluster of bubbles of various shapes and sizes, the "cooling down" of the universe happened at different times in different regions creating different 'universes' with different laws of physics. This model is similar to Branes with one significant difference, unlike M-theory which has never been experimentally confirmed, Inflation predicts numerous details about the universe and has been confirmed experimentally, notably wit the results of the WMAP survey.

6. Computer simulated universe. We could possibly be living in a computer simulation and we've all been fooled by a system that passes the "Turing test". This theory however seems to raise more problems than it solves making it very implausible but none the less possible. This model could rather simply explain the apparent constraints of the universe. It should be noted that this very implausible theory is easily the most analogous to a deity, an idea that suffers many similar problems.

These are only the possible explanations that came to me off the top of my head, there could well be a great many more. Seeing as we should believe the proposition that is most likely true and assuming for a second that all of these theories are equally plausible there is no reason to suppose that a deity is the most likely explanation and thus no good reason to believe it to be true - And that is being generous because I do not believe these theories to be equally plausible, for instance Inflationary theory has made testable predictions that have been confirmed experimentally and Cosmic Evolution proposes no entities or mechanisms that have not already been shown to exist while a deity requires we propose an immaterial mind and creation by will instead of via mechanism.

And that is why, even though I consider the "fine-tuning" argument the best of the arguments for the existence of a deity, I still believe it is one of the more unlikely explanations given the evidence available.

[HeyItsZeus]

I would actually agree with you on this one. Although it isn't a solid argument it makes sense to me to see things that way.

[fr0d0]

If faith is the explicit requirement for belief then you're never going to come up with material theory that would satisfy Christianity and the Christian concept of God.

That said... please carry on....

[thebigfudge]

Back in my Christian days the argument that convinced me was the fine-tuning argument.

[theVOID]

If faith is the explicit requirement for belief then you're never going to come up with material theory that would satisfy Christianity and the Christian concept of God.

That said... please carry on....

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

[Minimalist]

After sober reflection ( the worst kind of reflection, btw) Void, I think you are right. Flawed as it is, the 'fine-tuning' argument is the best that the morons can come up with. The fact that it fails to stand up to scrutiny is no deterrent for them as they won't scrutinize much of anything.

The fact that the moon is covered with impact craters:



and Mars:



and earth:




So, an all-powerful god creates the entire fucking universe but doesn't know jack shit about orbital mechanics? Some fine-tuner!

[Epimethean]

None of it compels me, but if we're suspending disbelief, I'll sit in the theater you described-but only to watch.

[fr0d0]

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.)

[Ace Otana]

Atheists, what do you believe is the best argument for the existence of a deity? And why do you believe it is still insufficient for belief in a deity?

Can't think of any. Never encountered a good theist argument. Any explanation lacking explanatory power is of no value and so not worth anything other than an all out rejection.
Besides, an explanation that bares many baseless assertions and is unnecessarily complex would be completely against Occam's Razer. And I stand strongly with Occam's Razer.

[downbeatplumb]

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.