I am new but think I have the best argument for atheism

[tackattack]

---

Thanks for the response. Sorry, I didn't know I was writing in pink. How do I change that?

Tack, here is what he wrote last in its entirety. Please forgive its length. I argued for the cave painting was done by humans and gave all the evidence that this was the best plausible answer given--arceological evidence, humans paint/draw, tools etc. He wrote----

Even in the absence of other examples from that time period, the surrounding area, or on the entire continent for that matter, who would be so obtuse as to suggest that a cave wall drawing, regardless of how remotely isolated it may be, had a non-intelligent cause? But that appears to be what you are saying: Because you have no apparent evidence for an intelligent cause, other than the existence of the universe and life itself, a non-intelligent cause must be assumed. How utterly irrational is that? The only way a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life can be challenged at all is if there could be found a non- intelligent source that can be demonstrated to cause effects of that kind/class (information rich with specified complexity). Since there are no known non-intelligent sources that can demonstrate causing effects of that kind/class (even a simple cave wall drawing), intelligence stands alone as the highest probable cause for the origin of the universe and life.
It is patently false to insist that a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life has been refuted or proved incorrect Cite the refutation or proof.
Perhaps another example would be helpful. Suppose one day earth detects a repeating signal every ten minutes from deep space, from a source pinpointed to a distant galaxy, and the repeating signal is composed of nothing more than the first 50 prime numbers. Having absolutely zero information regarding the source, other than the signal itself, would you infer a non-intelligent cause for the signal or a possible, if not likely, intelligent cause? What information would you need to know about the source of the signal in order to logically and rationally infer a possible, if not probable, intelligent cause? Answer: Nothing! The specific nature and identity of the source is irrelevant given what we know of the effect itself: the only known cause for effects of that kind/class are intelligent causes. Period.
The only thing that would challenge an inferred intelligent cause (but couldn't eliminate it) would be to identify a non-intelligent source that can demonstrate the ability to cause effects of that kind/class. When you can identify one, let me know. Until then, here's the syllogism:
1. Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity 2. The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3. Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe and life.
In order to "refute" this, as you claim, one or the other premises must be shown to be false, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. A "pond" does not exhibit information rich specified complexity. Do you not see the difference between an effect caused by a non-intelligent cause (nature) and one that is the exclusive effect of an intelligent cause? The pond can be caused by mindless, undirected natural processes or by an intelligent cause, but a cave wall drawing can never be the effect of a mindless, undirected natural process, but only by an intelligence.
Hide or report this
•

(striking out any logical fallacies- my doing)which leaves the following for information:
1. a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life can be challenged if there could be found a non- intelligent source that can be demonstrated to cause effects of that kind/class (information rich with specified complexity).
2. Since there are no known non-intelligent sources that can demonstrate causing effects of that kind/class (even a simple cave wall drawing)
3. intelligence stands alone as the highest probable cause for the origin of the universe and life.
4. The specific nature and identity of the source is irrelevant given what we know of the effect itself
5. the only known cause for effects of that kind/class are intelligent causes.
6. a cave wall drawing can never be the effect of a mindless, undirected natural process, but only by an intelligence.

His kind/class argument is intentionally broad (as it is the universe).
He also plays with definitions. A drawing can't be mindless because of it's definition (see greek- techne). A berry splatting against a cave wall isn't a drawing but is mindless...  so he's not really doing justice to the definition. mindless is even a strech as a definition. Can a robot create a painting? A money a book, etc.
That coupled with the obvious fallacies and the blatant contradiction he states in 4 I hope are clearer now that the dross is burned off.

Basically he's saying that the effect is the universe, and it's so broad, that the cause is moot while at the same time calling a cave painting and radio signals in the same kind/class of the specificity and complexity of the universe. It's probably be more easily seen by him if you just restated like:
1. Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity within the universe
2. The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3. Therefore, a sufficiently advanced and human, Thor, idea, alien, axiomatic cause or robot is a possible cause for the universe and life.