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

[Tiberius]

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

Simple question.

This will weed out the realists and the rationalists from the rest.

No, of course I wouldn't be an atheist if science / reason wasn't supportive of it. Science isn't supportive of atheism in the first place; science cannot ever conclude anything about the existence of God, given that God is supposedly a supernatural being. Science is limited to the empirical and within the natural world.

[Creed of Heresy]

So hey, uh, Vinnie, where's that majority of atheists whom you kept presupposing would be atheists even with proof for god? You know, the "emotional atheists," as you put it? Cuz uh...it looks like your ability to read people based on their kneejerk reactions to answering the same tired arguments 100 times over isn't really coming up as all too accurate! Surprise, surprise...

[Angrboda]

So hey, uh, Vinnie, where's that majority of atheists whom you kept presupposing would be atheists even with proof for god? You know, the "emotional atheists," as you put it? Cuz uh...it looks like your ability to read people based on their kneejerk reactions to answering the same tired arguments 100 times over isn't really coming up as all too accurate! Surprise, surprise...

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

So hey, uh, Vinnie, where's that majority of atheists whom you kept presupposing would be atheists even with proof for god? You know, the "emotional atheists," as you put it? Cuz uh...it looks like your ability to read people based on their kneejerk reactions to answering the same tired arguments 100 times over isn't really coming up as all too accurate! Surprise, surprise...

I don't know whether to pretend this question is even real or not.

[Darkstar]

Wrong. This is only valid if Bob's ticket is the only ticket in existence.

EXACTLY!

The universe having a 1:1 chance of coming into being if this universe is the ONLY POSSIBLE UNIVERSE THAT CAN COME INTO BEING.

edit:

AND no other state of being can occur. Ie, there cannot even be a state of being where there isn't a universe. I don't think Rhythm's position meets this criteria.

I think you misunderstood. Taking the one ticket (one chance at making a universe) and saying that it is impossibly unlikely for it to win (universe arising by chance) is illogical when you have already seen that it is a winning ticket.

[Annik]

I think you misunderstood. Taking the one ticket (one chance at making a universe) and saying that it is impossibly unlikely for it to win (universe arising by chance) is illogical when you have already seen that it is a winning ticket.

It's impossible to figure the odds since we don't know if or how many other universes are out there.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

EXACTLY!

The universe having a 1:1 chance of coming into being if this universe is the ONLY POSSIBLE UNIVERSE THAT CAN COME INTO BEING.

edit:

AND no other state of being can occur. Ie, there cannot even be a state of being where there isn't a universe. I don't think Rhythm's position meets this criteria.

I think you misunderstood. Taking the one ticket (one chance at making a universe) and saying that it is impossibly unlikely for it to win (universe arising by chance) is illogical when you have already seen that it is a winning ticket.

This presupposes a non-deterministic explanation and artificially removes deterministic explanations from the pool of live options.

Consider, for instance the possibility that "you got that ticket because someone who has access to all the tickets and knows the winner gave you the winning ticket".

This is a real possibility, and your example does not allow for it. It forces a non-deterministic explanation when there could have been a deterministic explanation.

[Darkstar]

This presupposes a non-deterministic explanation and artificially removes deterministic explanations from the pool of live options.

Consider, for instance the possibility that "you got that ticket because someone who has access to all the tickets and knows the winner gave you the winning ticket".

This is a real possibility, and your example does not allow for it. It forces a non-deterministic explanation when there could have been a deterministic explanation.

That isn't quite the same. It would be more like if we supposed that someone used magic to change the number on the ticket. Just as this is a more extraordinary claim than getting the winning ticket, so is the chance an infinite god existing much lower than a finite and natural universe which we already know to exist arising by chance.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I don't see why "magic" is necessary.

Why can it not just be some being, person or entity who has control over the situation, much like someone has control over the design and manufacturing of lottery tickets and can theoretically ensure that someone wins.

[Darkstar]

I don't see why "magic" is necessary.

Why can it not just be some being, person or entity who has control over the situation, much like someone has control over the design and manufacturing of lottery tickets and can theoretically ensure that someone wins.

Are you claiming that the person who fixed the lottery is also omnipotent?