Please present positive arguments why you think atheism is true

[Jireh]

It is one thing to look at the complexity of life and question how valid evolution etc is to explain it and QUITE another to look at it and simply deduce that it all means an infinite being created it all.

we don't deduce things out of no reason, but because we have good reasons to deduce God as the best explanation.
The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. The universe is finely tuned to life, therefore a fine-tuner. Life comes only from life, therefore a living creator. Information as stored in DNA comes always from a mind, therefore a intelligent mind created DNA. Consciousness can not come from dead matter, therefore God is the best explanation. Please do not got into this now, since this topic is not about theists evidence, but about strong atheists evidence for naturalism.

If this universe is far too complex it had to be created by a very complex being. Do you believe that God is more or less complex than the universe?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News...le&id=5493

As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.

If he is more complex than the universe but does not require a creator then why does this universe require a creator?

God is uncaused, eternal, while the universe cannot be so.

and , as posted already :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t132-the...l-argument

the beginning of the universe is strongly supported by modern big bang cosmology. The proponent of the KCA thus finds himself comfortably seated in the midst of mainstream cosmology. Combined, these two reasons lend strong support to the truth of the second premise. Additionally, an eternal universe is ruled out by the second law of thermodynamics

Before you argue that God is simply spirit and the world is not you still had to prove there is in fact a spiritual world.

I don't have to prove it, just present good reasons is enough.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t283-ein...t=einstein

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional space-time relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages (e.g., English, French, Navajo, etc.). Between the two realms shown in figure 1, we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

A) Prove there is a spiritual world
B) Prove how there can be any evidence for a being which is by definition non-testable
C) Provide arguments that actually prove something instead of stating your own awe and wonder about our universe

there are no proofs, either for naturalism, nor for theism. the right question to ask , is : what is the best explanation for our existence ?

youll find absolute proofs only in mathematics.

---

Ignoring the possibility that both you and I are equally wrong? God is not a default.

either God does exist, or he does not exist. there is no third alternative.
God is not a default, neither naturalism is.

Appeals to ignorance and personal incredulity.

Well, as atheists always say : extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Do you have any, that dead matter can transform by its own into thoughts and conscience of self ?

a even more extraordinary claim would be to assert, everything arose from absolutely nothing. That is the alternative you have. Or to claim the universe had no beginning, existing in one form or the other eternally. That would also be a even more extraordinary claim.


These would be the claims of theism.

No. That are the two alternatives atheists have.

That god (and by extention all else) arose from absolutely nothing

Thats not what i said.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god

A common argument from atheists and skeptics is that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God (and if God is not God, then of course there is no God). This is a slightly more sophisticated form of the basic question “Who made God?” Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a “something,” then He must have a cause, right?

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

, or that god had no beginning, existing in one form or the other eternally. Both extraordinary claims. The position of science and naturalism is "We don't know, but we're looking into it by the only means available to us". Strawman.

well, as said, we do have good reasons to discard both alternatives.

1. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives. If the universe had a beginning, it had a cause.

2. The universe cannot have existed eternally. I have presented good philosophical and scientific reasons why. You call it strawman. That up to you. But we are well justified to deduce theism, no matter you like it or not.