Theists: What is the most compelling argument you have heard for Atheism?

[Whateverist]

---

Hey, they're your beliefs, your rationale and your thresholds.  You could tighten them up or make them a lot looser and my opinion would matter just as little.  They only have to please you.

But I have a question for you.  Why do you assume in your "natural theology arguments" that all these functions are performed by just one being? [1] All of them assume that external agency is required, something I find more dubious than satisfactory in explanatory power.  But even if you hang on to a tinkering mega-agency as being required for a-c, why couldn't d-e be explained by evolution or as unintended by products of a-c?  [2]

Funny how the impulse to keep it simple by attributing it all to just one omni-agent doesn't go even further and leave out the middleMan altogether.  Instead of everything is just so because it is the will of God - where the will of God just is the will of God, you could have everything is just so because the universe just is the way it is.  Simpler still. [3]

---

1. The arguments are not conclusive on their own. They are part of a cumulative argument for the existence of God. Separating them out and positing different entities is an unreasonable step (there is no reason).

But is there any more reason for attributing them to just one entity? Seems tidy and suspiciously convenient, almost as if this is what you wanted to end up concluding in the first place.

 
2. You would have to develop the entire argument. Perhaps I will start a thread soon on (d). (E) has been beat to death recently and I have no interest in bringing that topic up again anytime soon.

Not sure what more there is to develop. I'm just pointing out that the rush to attribute everything to one entity is gratuitous. Ultimately I believe we can dispense with even one mega, fine tuning entity. But here I only mean to show that even such a creator entity would not have had to deliberately intend every detail of every outcome. The richness of detail we find in the world is better understood as reflecting the inherent nature of what happens to exist than as the premeditated intention of a cosmic watchmaker to put it there.

3. The universe's existence and fine tuning being a brute fact is not simplicity. It defies all reasoning with no explanation (or hope of one). That does not sit well with most people.

What you call "fine tuning" is what I call things arraying themselves as they must given their inherent properties and current trajectory. Why in the world do you want to add in some poor over worked creator to put his stamp on each and every detail. It strikes me as absurd.