Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[polymath257]

Dude, ya can't just point at a pretty fish and declare it evidence of God. 

Actually, I can. The appearance of design is why the vast majority of people believe in God. If you think evolution is a valid defeater to design, you still have to rule out theistic evolution/guided evolution.

 you can move on to try demonstrating why bone cancer in children is evidence for God.

Is bone cancer an exception, or the state of the majority of children in the world? I want a clear answer. 

Do you think it makes sense to make inference from exceptions, and not from the health status of the majority who don't have bone cancer?

---

 And since mundane explanations are the preferred explanation for mundane phenomena, the God explanation automatically loses the position of 'most likely'.

It's really ironic that you mention the word mundane -which originates from the French word mondain=worldly. Something that is worldly belongs to the world. A mundane(worldly) explanation is an explanation inside the world.... How does that make you dispense with the creator of the world... outside the world ????

If a mundane (inside the world) explanation is possible, why would a non-mundane one be required? It's like saying that angels are guiding the planets in such a way that it *looks* like there is gravity.

While those angels aren't *forbidden*, the fact that gravity works according to laws we can discover suggests that the angel explanation isn't a very good one.

Likewise, if evolution by natural selection is sufficient to explain the observed variations in living things, then adding a deity to the explanation is to complicate matters unnecessarily.