The Rebuttal of Ayn Rand's Silly Argument against the Existence of God from "Objectivism: The Uninspired Religion of 'Reason' "
Rand never satisfactorily explains why faith is the antithesis of reason. She merely likens it to blind devotion (strawman), something necessarily uninformed by rational or empirical evidence, as she brazenly asserts that the essence of existence and that of all real knowledge is strictly material. In other words, she begs the question and does so in spite of the axiomatic complexion of her metaphysics: the triadic construct of existence, identity and consciousness. The methodology of Rand's epistemology begins with the immediate perceptions of sensory input, the understanding of which are systematically refined via the processes of concept-formation, from the concrete to the abstract, including empirical validation and the application of inductive and deductive reasoning.

To her credit, insofar as it presents a false alternative, Rand sensibly rejects the rationalist-empiricist dichotomy of history, but nowhere in her letters does she demonstrate an awareness of the fact that the prophets and the apostles of the Bible rejected it's various renditions in history centuries before her! In the meantime, revelatory knowledge continuously guides our understanding of new information and does lend itself to the rigors of scientific and historical exegesis. Hence, one need not exhaustively expound Rand's philosophy in order to divulge the true impetus for her atheism. Instead, one need only wonder why she arbitrarily disdains the larger implications of her very own formulation for being.

The ramifications of Rand's notion that consciousness is relationally dependent in the sense that "it cannot be aware only of itself" as "there is no 'itself' until it is aware of something"14 other than itself allegedly overthrows the notion of an eternally existent, self-contained consciousness, for example, the Judeo-Christian concept of God as an eternally existent spirit of pure consciousness Who precedes the existence of all other entities, including that of the space-time continuum.  Hence, the consciousness to which Rand refers is finite, and the independent reality that she has in mind is physical, for in Rand's scheme of things the asseveration that existence has primacy over consciousness is absolute. Existence subsists on its own terms independently of consciousness. The limits of consciousness or the imperfections/incompleteness of its concepts at any given moment during the process of knowledge assimilation does not impinge upon the reality of the perceptions or that of the objects perceived, or as Rand's intellectual heir Leonard Peikoff puts it:
The fact that certain characteristics are, at a given time, unknown to man, does not indicate that these characteristics are excluded from the entity—or from the concept.15

A is A; existents are what they are, independent of the state of human knowledge; and a concept means the existents which it integrates. Thus, a concept subsumes and includes all the characteristics of its referents, known and not-yet-known.16
From there, Rand adroitly brings to bear the law of non-contradiction (A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive) and conclusively establishes that concepts comprehensively encompass all of the pertinent attributes and referents of any given existent as distinguished from those of all other existents.   Though some would beg to differ, she thusly annihilates epistemological skepticism and Kantian subjectivism.
(Like Rand, I have no tolerance for the inscrutable, philosophical meanderings of doubt and indecision.)

While Rand's commonsensical approach to the metaphysics of physical being—that is, the idea that its existence has primacy over human consciousness—falls right in line with the Judeo-Christian worldview, it does not demonstrate that the space-time continuum exists independently of divine consciousness (or volition). For the idea of God—which contains within itself its own specific nature and attributes—imposes itself on the human mind without the human mind willing that it do so. In other words, the idea objectively exists in and of itself, and the atheist necessarily acknowledges this every time he denies there be any substance behind it. In Objectivist terms, that's what's known as an axiom, a reliably rational proposition, one that is worthy of serious consideration, even though it may not be true.
An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. —Ayn Rand17

Rand's definition of axioms, explains Objectivist philosopher Leonard Peikoff, "is not a proof that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are true. It is proof that they are axioms, that they are at the base of knowledge and thus inescapable."18

The key phrase here relative to Rand's triadic construct is "at the base of knowledge", as this is the standard established by Rand that arbitrarily precludes knowledge about or consideration of the transcendent. But sentience—a highly organized, intricately complex state of being—readily recognizes that it's something arguably greater than the independently existent, albeit, inanimate material around it. It also recognizes that a highly organized, intricately complex set of dynamics appear to govern the structural and mechanical interactions of the material around it. It also recognizes that the only entities that harbor the attributes of creation and design—above the level of the structural/mechanical, though apparently mindless formulations of nature—are sentient.

Let's not spend too much time here rehashing the impotency of the atheist's bland assertions in the face of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind or of the infinite regression of origin, as the atheist, whether he realizes it or not, necessarily acknowledges these imperatives in his denials. The idea of God is not a figment of human culture. It resides "at the base of knowledge", for the idea that something can arise from nothing (that existence can arise from nonexistence) is an inexplicable absurdity.
For those of you who believe in nothing and, therefore, are easily deceived by almost anything, atheistic scientists like Lawrence Krauss who intentionally muddle ontological distinctions, merely to get a rise out of the philosophers and theologians they detest, do a disservice to science. Whether in jest or not, it's irresponsible. They dishonor their profession and treat us all with contempt when they imply that the problem of existence is strictly a scientific matter. Atheists, whether they be accomplished scientists or not, are notoriously bad thinkers outside the comfort zone of their presumptuous metaphysics and are theologically illiterate bumpkins to boot. . . .  The vacuum of quantum mechanics is not an ontological nothingness and does not resolve the problem of an infinite regress of contingent entities. —Michael David Rawlings, "A Mountain of Nothin' from Somethin' or Another"
This impression comes to us immediately and all at once: either (1) the universe has always existed in some form or another, in some dimensional estate or another, or (2) it was caused to exist by a being who has always existed, a necessarily transcendent being of unlimited genius and power. In other words, the First Cause is either inanimate or sentient, immanent or transcendent.

That does not mean, however, that this objectively apparent impression constitutes a proof for either alternative. It demonstrates that it's at the base of knowledge, that it's derived from reason, not faith.
I have no interest in proving God's existence to anyone, just in demonstrating the absurdities that arise from the denial of the possibility, which, incidentally, do not plague the bald assertion that God must be whatsoever. The reason for this is self-evident: the idea of God pertains to the origin of the universe, not to its nonexistence, while the unqualified denial of God's existence detours around an inescapable imperative: the undeniable possibility. The former stems from larger considerations that do not interrupt the natural course of logic; the latter is akin to the blind devotion of religious fanaticism.

(Unlike Rand, I have no tolerance for the obtuse, philosophical evasions of atheism.)