FallentoReason 2.0

[Kirbmarc]

#1 reflects the atheist position in a nutshell.

No. The atheistic position (the naturalistic atheistic position, at least. Not all atheists are naturalists) is not about "blind luck", it's about life having adapted to the universe, not vice versa. So both your example and your ideas about atheism are deeply flawed, I'm afraid.

#3 is what I believe, which to me is the Deistic position, where the Creator set forth the processes that we see today: solar systems, evolution, terraformation etc. (and even the order we see in the periodic table and physics phenomena).

Your position implicitly assumes that earth was made for life, while it's life that adapted to earth. On a different planet with different conditions we could have different forms of life (for example a life cycle based on anaerobic bacteria). In a possible different universe with different laws of nature we could have different forms that could be considered "life" (silicium based or arsenicum based life).

You implicitly assume that the universe was made for life and from then you argue the existence of a creator. But what you need to properly assess is the idea of the universe being projected. Saying "it's obvious that it was" or ""when I look at nature I can't help but feel that it was part of a project" are not good answers.

Your hypotheisis is ultimately based on an emotional response, not on reason.