Let's say that science proves that God exists

[Esquilax]

I'm not responding to hypotheticals the real world is perplexing enough. Besides I was told the first day I posted on this site that atheists are only persuaded by facts, not speculative theories.

If you're not responding to hypotheticals then isn't the conversation sort of over? I mean, you claim that the universe is set up in a narrow band of life supporting circumstances, but now you're saying you're not accepting any suggestion that things might be different because things aren't different. But that's a huge presupposition on it's own, because you can't say with any certainty that there is a narrow band to begin with. Like it or not, this conversation exists in hypotheticals; if you're just not accepting them then all you're really doing is shaking your head at the entire opposing viewpoint for no reason other than your own assumptions that things couldn't possibly be any different.

Good point. To fully consider a claim you have to look at the ramifications of either hypothesis. The most basic meaning of atheism is Not or without God. Not what without God? Not what theists chalk up to the existence of God such as the universe, life and ultimately human life. Atheists say these things came into existence without or not from God.

No, sorry. You're wrong. Let me see if I can put this another way: I'm not saying there's no god. I'm saying I don't believe in your god, because you haven't proved it. You're an atheist too, you know; when it comes to Zeus and Athena and all those other defunct gods you hold exactly the same position that I do. Does it then follow that you're saying those gods could never have existed? Do you have a burden of proof to show us that they are nonexistent?

The question of whether or not there's a designer isn't core to the atheist belief system; belief following from evidence is. There could be a designer: I just said that. It's out there. I just don't know whether there is or isn't. The question now becomes; how do we prove that, really? And how do we prove that such a designer is your god?

You call yourself an atheist, you doubt or lack belief God caused the universe or you flat out believe such a claim is false.

I think the problem is that you're conflating lack of belief in religious deities with a certain set of beliefs about the beginning of the universe. I believe that your god didn't create the universe solely because you haven't demonstrated that he has, yet I'm open to the possibility that he might have. My position follows the facts; it's not "there is no designer," it's "I don't know whether or not there is a designer, nor the extent to which such a being conforms to the persona detailed in earthly religious texts."

Can you call yourself and atheist yet believe the universe was designed and engineered to support life?

Raelians do it pretty well, without believing in a god. The lack of a designer is not a central tenet of atheism. You're making a crucial assumption, and that is that the designer must be your god.

Theism is a belief regarding the most basic philosophical questions that can be asked such as why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a universe, stars and planets and how did life and humans come about? If atheists said I haven't a clue how the universe got here or how humans came into existence but I say it wasn't God would you find that a compelling reason to believe God doesn't exist?

No, I wouldn't find it compelling but then again I don't know of any atheist that's making that claim. Why not just stop at the "I haven't a clue" part and then add "but let's keep looking."

Whether you're willing to defend it or even admit it you are advocating a position. You are claiming that whatever caused our existence or the universe to exist, it wasn't God. Nature did it. Nature didn't plan it to happen, didn't want it to happen, didn't care if it happened but without trying to did it somehow. Mindless forces somehow miraculously stumbled upon the formula to cause a universe and create life minus any knowlegde on how to do such a thing. And it wasn't a case of like creating like, according to atheist orthodoxy mindless lifeless forces created something totally unlike it self, life and mind. No wonder atheists cry foul when someone points out they have a position to defend also.

Nope.

Look above, I already admitted that there might be a designer. That doesn't threaten my atheism, either. But my admitting that possibility doesn't mean I believe it unreservedly, nor does it mean that you've escaped the burden of proof regarding not only the existence of such a designer, but the identity of it too. What if that designer was Cthulhu?

Since we can only definately say one universe exists not only does it need to happen only once, it needs to happen the one time we know it occurred. But is this your basis for believing God doesn't exist? Because its possible God doesn't exist therefore I don't believe God doesn't exist.

What I'm saying is, this question of random chance and low probabilities is moot, because if we are all here by chance, our existences aren't in question. No matter how low the chance might have been, if there was a random element at all, it definitely happened.

Because thats how we deterimine if something is by chance or by design. Suppose we didn't know the pyramids were intentionally created by design, wouldn't the design features of the pyramids themselves strongly suggest they were intentionally created?

No. We recognize design by contrasting it with other examples of design. We know the pyramids are designed because we can look at other monuments or buildings. We can find evidence that they were designed.

This argument falls apart when you consider all the magnificently low probability things that exist in nature; think of the Tessellating Pavement in my home state of Tasmania. It's a perfectly geometric patch of ground, and yet it wasn't designed, it just looks like it. It is, in fact, perfectly natural. Hell, just look at all the celestial bodies out there that look like other things to us when we see them through a telescope; all those are random too, while looking designed.

Then how can it be raised as an objection?

Because you're claiming to know with certainty, without any evidence for that.