Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[IDScience]

Oh it can be rejected fairly easily - rejected out of hand even.

That's not a rebuttal, explain why the logical inference can be rejected "out of hand". Don;t wast my time with personal assertions without an argument to be made for them, or ill cease responding to you

I need blind faith to accept some logical inference? I think that you may be mistaken.

Not mistaken. If it must be inferred there is no observable evidence for it, thus must be taken in faith. Empirical evidence does not need to be inferred

Actually, since you mentioned inferences...assumption would be the wrong term to use. You're talking about people inferring aliens, not assuming them, but carry on.

You must assume the existence of something before you can infer the existence of something

Sure, we can partition life in increments of 1% or a half of .01% all day long, especially if it;s hypothetical life, eh?

Shall we delve into scientific hypothetical's? that have no observable evidence, eh?

Generally speaking, when you use the word "therefore" something is following. In this case, it's not. 1.1, 2.9, A billion.1...all your line of reasoning would lead us to is incrementally more intelligent than the last (and less intelligent than the next). You've made a leap of faith - over your own argument, invoking a god for no reason whatsoever. Gratz.

I have made a leap of faith based on observable evidence, logical inferences and evolutionary theory. Unless your going to postulate evolutionary theory predicts intelligence must stop evolving at some point. Which I doubt you will go there

Let's see that math then, eh?

Ill use your math for evolutionary theory. If it becomes exponentially more difficult for life to become more intelligent the longer it exists, then you argue against your own theory of abiogenesis and evolution

No it doesn't. Ask yourself what the odds would be of a new creature the size of a blue whale cropping up on this rock would be? Now weigh that against the emergence of novel forms of single celled life. There;s a reason that there are more different types of germs on this planet than there are whales (a whole host of reasons, actually).

The odds of quantity are due to reproductive abilities and resources available. This has nothing to do with my argument, as I believe there is only one God. The only logical way to reject God is to have a logical reason to reject a God-like intellect, which you don't have

-Or-, you're fapping all over a self serving construct of what you think an atheist must do, must think, must "whatever".

I should have clarified. Its what a rationally thinking atheist must do. Any atheist that accepts the possibility of any other life (by faith) but rejects a God-like life form from existing is not logical, but emotional

Why would I do that? I'd imagine a "godlike intelligence" would be a small feat if this cosmos were teeming with life...if the intelligence of our human gods are the bar that needs to be met. Shooting for the bare minimum on that one, it would seem.

Of course, and since you have no idea what life forms do exist and don;t exist in our own solar system, you then can;t possibly know what life forms do and don't exist throughout the entire universe can you?. Thus can't logically make emphatic claims about what life forms do and don't exist

You keep using that word.....as before, therefore usually indicates something that follows, and here again it does not.

Therefore God could logically exists does follow unless you can prove a God-like intellect is incapable of existing or highly unlikely to exist. Therefore God could exist, just as life form 1.1 and 1.2 could exist.

Now explain to me why life form 1.1 can exist . but life form 10000000 can not. And if you can't explain it , then you have no logical basis for atheism.. You will eventually be forced to admit your atheism is based in 100% subjective faith