Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I notice you didn't respond to my previous rebuttal of your claim. May I assume then that you concede my point?

Improbable event: My cup of coffee floating up towards the ceiling at 6:30 pm

OK

Rhythm claims the event becomes a certainty at 6:30 pm 1:1

Which means that the event actually occurred

6:31 pm, a 1:1 event, predicted to be inevitable, has not taken place.

Yes it has. You said that it had in your previous statement. That's what the expressions 'certainty' and '1:1' mean; that a factual occurrence has been observed. It's the actual occurrence of the event that changes the probability from a possibility to a certainty.

How the fuck can it be improbable and certain at the same time you fuckwit?

The two are mutually exclusive. It can't be both. It's like saying the value of a constant is six and fifteen at the same time.

---

My problem with "technically possible" is that it ultimately goes against reality as we know it.

If by 'it' you mean god, then yes.

Imagine you see a Pagani Huayra in your driveway, and you actually do believe it wasn't designed, it's construction, testing, painting, everything wasn't planned. The whole car came about from random chance as dust blew past your driveway over hundreds of thousands of years.

Hoyle's fallacy
Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit
In a nutshell, life evolves in a way inanimate matter cannot, and it does so in observable steps that build on each other naturally, rather than all at once, or in a totally random fashion.

We've never seen a single incident of something popping into being from nothing.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/...ossibility
Quantum fluctuation

So I have a hard time believing the universe came about in such a random violation of all known scientific laws, and ON TOP OF THAT was fine-tuned.

Random violation of all know scientific laws? Seems a bit exaggerated. Finely tuned for what? Considering that most of the universe is lifeless, I don't know how well tuned it is. Not to mention the possibility that other forms of life than our own could exist.

It's not conceivability on its own that matters. It's conceivability + necessity as part of a pool of live options.

The unicorn, if we are using a unicorn, must be one of only two possible explanations of something.

As such, your unicorn is irrelevant, while a non-physical mind capable of creating the universe actually explains something in the universe.

Unicorns make it rain by crying as they fly across the sky. Undetectable unicorns. WadduIwin?

Both of Dawkins ideas are bullshit.

They all boil down to "who designed the designer".

Which leads to an infinite regress and thus fails.

You need to graduate from Dawkins are read smarter atheists. Nobody takes him seriously in universities anymore.

BTW, invisible unicorns who are also omnipotent and can create the universe? So you're a theist now?