Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?

[Mister Agenda]

My problem with "technically possible" is that it ultimately goes against reality as we know it.

Imagine you see a Pagani Huayra in your driveway, and you actually do believe it wasn't designed, it's construction, testing, painting, everything wasn't planned. The whole car came about from random chance as dust blew past your driveway over hundreds of thousands of years.

You mean imagine we don't know where Pagani Huaryra's come from so as to play along with a really bad analogy?

You are still left with Leibniz' question: "Why is there 'something'?"

Why shouldn't there be something?

We know there was a "nothing"- the Big Bang, the origin of the universe, prior to which there was no matter, no energy, nothing.

We don't know that at all. We don't even know if such a state is possible.

How in the hell did nothing give rise to something?

What property are you ascribing to nothingness that would make it impossible for something to come from it?

There's no scientific evidence that this is even possible naturalistically. We don't see things popping into being in our cars, bathrooms, bedrooms, living rooms, offices, football games.

It happens all the time, naturalistically, at the quantum scale. In fact, it starts to happen right about where it starts to look like nothingness.

We've never seen a single incident of something popping into being from nothing.

Except for virtual particles, which happens all the time, apparently just because there's 'nothing' to stop it from happening.

So I have a hard time believing the universe came about in such a random violation of all known scientific laws, and ON TOP OF THAT was fine-tuned.

Well, now that you know it doesn't involve the violation of any known scientific laws, I trust that you will do the rational instead of emotional thing and lower your estimate of the probability of God accordingly.

That's just improbability multiplied with improbability.

For all we know, it could be inevitability multiplied by probabiity. We only have one example of a universe, that the physical constants could have been different is thus far speculation.

I mean, if you had to quantify the number of empirical examples we have of "something not popping into being from nothing", you would have to multiply the planck-area of the universe times the planck-time of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

That's pretty damn close to impossible, bro.

On the contrary, what we find is that every cubic nanometer is chock-full of things popping into being out of nothing.

It's not conceivability on its own that matters. It's conceivability + necessity as part of a pool of live options.

So you're saying that when you brought up God's conceivability, it was irrelevant?

The unicorn, if we are using a unicorn, must be one of only two possible explanations of something.

The existence of the legends of unicorns can only be explained by unicorns existing, or unicorns being made up.

As such, your unicorn is irrelevant, while a non-physical mind capable of creating the universe actually explains something in the universe.

You can't add a mystery to a mystery and claim the second mystery explains the first.