Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[polymath257]

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.

Because the world in itself warrants a cause. Angels guiding planets isn't exactly the same as the designer of the universe. Angels didn't cause the existence of planets, they are a simple substitute (or a complement) to natural laws. God, on the other hand, is posited as a lawgiver.

OK, so how do you prove that such a lawgiver actually exists? Or, for that matter, make the existence of such a lawgiver more likely than the non-existence?

You make a number of assumptions that have not been demonstrated:

1. That a natural law requires a law giver

2. That humans are qualified to recognize design without further testing

3. That an infinite regress is impossible

4. That, even if there is/was a lawgiver for natural laws, that there is only one such

5. That causality makes sense outside of the universe

6. That everything that begins to exist (meaning there was a time when it did not exist) needs to have a cause (applied unevenly, I might add)

7. That having a start means that a thing 'begins to exist' in the sense of the last claim

8. That postulating a lawgiver means that such a lawgiver must actually exist

I can go on, but how about we address these?