Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Jenny A]

Hardly. I suggest you check a dictionary.

I have "checked a dictionary".

Then you didn't read the definition I so helpfully quoted and linked for you. Atheism is a lack of belief in god not necessarily a belief that god does not exist.

Either God exists or he does not exist. Its either A or B, if you reject A you must accept B, and vice versa. Learn the law of exclude middle

You're making a simple logical mistake here. If only A or B can exist than it's true that proving A excludes B or vis versa. But with regard to belief or knowledge of A and B there are three possibilities: belief in A, belief in B, or lack of knowledge as to whether there is A or B.

Let me make this really simple for you. I flip a coin so that you cannot see which side landed up. There are two possibilities heads, or tails. It can't be both. But you could have three states of mind about the coin: 1) heads; 2) tails, and 3) lack of knowledge. Notice that the third choice is the only rational one as from your point of view there is no way for you to know which way the coin landed.

Then there might be a God, therefore atheism is not logical

You are still using an inaccurate definition of atheism. What you are saying is that all logical atheists are agnostic. I would agree with that. But given how unlikely the existence of a god is, that's a distinction that hardly matters. I think god is so extraordinarily unlikely that the possibility one exists is not worth serious consideration.

Um, no. We just from possibility to existence. You missed a crucial step here.

Yes I jumped from life form 1.1 to God, both of which have no observable evidence. But I accept the possibility that both are equally probable

No they are far from equally probable. For example you observe fish from the size of anchovies to the size of the largest shark. If you pay attention you will note that the number of species and the number of actual fish cluster around the smaller end of the scale. Smaller fish are more probable than larger fish. Infinitely small or large fish are not possible, even though imaginable.

This is also true of intelligence. Most organisms are not very intelligent. Humans are at the extreme upper end of what we observe. Thus beings of greater intelligence are less probable. Infinitely intelligent organisms are not remotely probable.

Using physical limitations of life forms on earth, then extending that argument to places elsewhere in the universe is not possible.

Sure it is. It is possible, likely even, that life exists on other planets, but that life will still be restricted the the physical constraints of gravity, finding nourishment, maintaining body temperature, etc.

Secondly the argument is about size of intelligence not physical dimensions.

Intellect resides in physical structures called brains. Physical structures have physical limitations.

Third an infinite intellect is not needed to create the universe because the information contained in the universe is limited thus the intellect required to create it can also be limited. All knowledge does not equate unlimited in knowledge. Someone can know all that can possibly be known (thus be all knowing) but still not have infinite knowledge

I'll grant that an infinite intellect is not necessary to create the universe. It's quite possible the universe began without any intellect involved. But the intellect required to design the universe is so far off the scale of intelligence that we observe as to make such an intellect ridiculously improbable.

Further, a mere intellect cannot create anything tangible. Physical abilities are required to build what the mind's eye sees.

And how do you know we are not hip deep in Gods?. You can't see beyond your limited scope. We are gods (Elohim)

Psa 82:6 I have said, You are gods; and all of you sons of the Most High.
Psa 82:7 But you shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

God is a position of authority not a person, just as president is a position not a person. The Hebrew judges were also called Elohim.

If you are going to define people as gods, we are hip deep in them. But that's disingenuous on your part. You are postulating a creator god who made the universe and that is the god you are attempting to prove.

And just a quick survey 3.5 billion years ago would have shown you increased intelligence was quite unlikely. Your at odds with your own theory of evolution.

Actually no. Increased intelligence remains rare. That's the point. Mammals, birds, and other larger animals with greater intelligence remain extremely rare both in numbers of species and in actual numbers of organisms. The more intelligent the rarer. Brains are biologically expensive organs.

Gnostic is not a valid term. No one knows (via empirical observation) anything, they only believe. So we are technically talking about 4 groups of people

1. Those who believe God does exist
2. Those who believe God does not exist
3. Those who are undecided on Gods existence
4. Those with no concept of the question (babies, mentally ill)

And since you reject option 1 & 3, you must accept option 2. Because either God exists or he does not exist. You are not undecided on Gods existence as agnostics are

I don't reject option 3. I accept option 3 as a general rule. I accept option 2 with regard to a number of particular gods: Zeus, Yehweh, Shiva, Thor, The Tooth Fairy, Allah.

Missdefining atheism doesn't, change my beliefs. If you want to call me agnostic in your own little mind, feel free to do so.