[split]Atheism is based of ignorance.

[Esquilax]

You're still looking for scientific evidence for God the same way Dawkins would. By his very definition you would not be able to "prove his existence with science" this isn't a scientific hypothesis or explanation. It is a context yes, there is going to be a eternal context of some kind one way or the other and again science doesn't and can't prove what that will be.

I'm looking for evidence at all. The fact that you don't have any, the fact that you're reduced to vaguely mystical personal experiences and ookie feelings is a pretty bad sign.

If assume materialism to begin with you may still experience God but you'll have some other explanation for it and still be an atheist.

If your personal experience- the unique, and sole way by which one can be convinced of the truth of god- is so vague that it can be interpreted as something else, then how the hell do you know you haven't just interpreted it wrong by assuming mysticism is true?

I'm sure you experience something you just won't ascribe it to God.

This is another problem with your claims: rather than just answering my contentions, you and so many others would rather get defensive and start reinterpreting our reasons for why we aren't convinced. My response to that is simply, grow up.

The other important note here is that, if the evidence for your god is so strong that it can convince you- and I'm sure you don't think I'm any more rational than you- then you could rob us atheists of all our credibility, turn us into the contrarians you think we are, by simple presenting that evidence to everyone. If you're so convincing, we wouldn't have nearly the voice that we have now. We'd be like the flat earthers, and yet...

Whats the more logical alternative to an eternal creator of the universe who is relational with his creatures?

It's more logical to not believe in something without evidence for it. I don't need an alternative to something that doesn't have a rational basis in itself. Do you need an alternative to bigfoot?

It's more logical that there was an explosion and as an unintentional byproduct we just happened to end up here?

Brush that straw off your coat, man!

There was no margin for error in this whole process you know this was all very finely balanced, and you're still saying it wasn't intentional at all?

I'm saying that small chances aren't the same as impossible, and that in retrospect the chances of it happening are one hundred percent. Also, I am absolutely certain that you have no significant education in cosmology, biology or chemistry, and combining that with our inability to discover certain things about the past just yet, you have no method by which you can make a calculation of probability, error margins or the process itself, anyway.

What makes you think it wasn't? Atheists don't demonstrate their reasoning for this but seem to consider it to be a given unless demonstrated otherwise.

I think it wasn't because I haven't been provided a reason to believe you. Do you have one, or just more of this petty bullcrap?

Of course but again you can't prove the existence of God via the scientific method.

There are more ways to prove something than science. Pick one.

Certainly you can take the universe as a whole and point out that we're dealing with a complex piece of machinery, or a complex growing and thriving living entity. Random unfathomable cosmic chaos it is not there is structure, growth and development and we are a part of it.

Prove it. Because what I see is a big load of emptiness that occasionally explodes or is engulfed in radioactive fire, through which endless deadly particles stream in random patters and occasionally fall into superdense maws in spacetime that nothing can escape, and that we're an insignificant speck in an insignificant galaxy that is eventually going to collide with another.

I also see christians willing to ignore these things when it suits their purposes.

There isn't a burden of proof for God because you can prove the existence of God with science. You can come to the conclusion that God exists via deductive reasoning based on the kind of things we know about the universe.

So, like so many others of your ilk, you seek to just define your god into existence with presuppositions and a bias you refuse to recognize, rather than just provide evidence, which is something you can do for any other existential claim.

You're presupposing God isn't a reality but that's you're opinion of what reality is. And you're wrong about this one.

Do not presume to know what I think.

If you call your view of a Godless universe the "reality based worldview" then you're claiming to know what the nature of reality ultimately is as a statement of fact. No you don't know, GTFO. Listen to the wisdom of the Space Gnome.

Reality is neutral to god, at the moment, and I don't know whether there is or isn't one, because I've looked at the available evidence and all I can muster is a shrug and anticipation of what we'll discover next. But you do believe in a god, and given your inability to back up that claim, this is at odds with the neutral reality that really does exist.

Because you're presupposing materialism and assuming God is a scientific claim or explanation which the scientific method is applicable to. It is not applicable to God.

Again, I'll tell you what I believe. You recasting this as some childish little conspiracy isn't helping your case.

And the fact we exist at all is some kind of unintentional accident/byproduct isn't that right?

Yes, if you like.

No it seems a bit unlikely to me everything considered.

I don't care. That's just an argument from personal incredulity. I care what you can demonstrate.

The universe clearly is some kind of precisely structured process with a clear beginning.

The concept of a beginning might not even make sense in a pre-big bang universe, we don't know. That means, neither do you, so stop pretending like you do.

It grew and developed over time, we and all living things (all flesh as the Bible would call it) are part of this very same process. This is something we actually know, we can see it, study it, it is factual and yes it perfectly well does fit with role of a creator God or supreme intelligence.

Internally consistent does not mean true. Demonstrate your claims.

The question has a lot of merit and fit perfectly with the universe we can observe. Atheists are the group of people who just go "pffffft" shrug their shoulders and expect to have entitlement to call anyone who has a faith in God delusional.

If you believe in something but all you have to justify it is a feeling and a rationalization you've convinced yourself of, then what is there to separate you from the delusional? They do all the same things, you know.