Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Mister Agenda]

Just as the unimaginably small atom was proven to mimic a solar system -a concept that would have been laughably ridiculous 200 years ago-, the entire universe can also be a "single cell" in a much larger system.

It's laughably ridiculous now. The resemblance between an atom and a solar system is so superficial that it's very close to being entirely false. Clue: atoms don't really look like that, it's a gross oversimplification for the benefit of minds still in grade school.

Your problem is your mental scope is extremely narrow and limited in its ability to comprehend the fact that, SIZE HAS NO RELEVNCE at all to the potential existence of a system or a life form or intelligence. Now expand your mind and comprehend what I just said. And you can start this mental expansion by researching “universal fractals”. Everything that exists, patterns, systems,, and life, exist on unimaginably small and large scales.

Your problem is that your mental scope is too narrow and limited in its ability to comprehend the vast gulf between what could possibly be true and what actually IS true. That gulf is bridged with evidence, not speculation.

First, I don't need evidence for my claim for it to be rational.

Therefore, no evidence is needed for the contrary claim to be rational.

Just as the multiverse of inflationary cosmology and the “many worlds” of quantum physics do not need evidence of their existence to be a rational concept.

The former definitely has evidence, which is the cause of it being accepted. The latter remains hypothetical pending evidence one way or another.

If one universe exists, many or endless other universe all with different attributes/constants can also logically exist, and this is based solely on inference.

The vast majority of things that can logically exist, don't.

And I have logical inferences for my position, a fact that has blown right over your head.

I strongly doubt that anything you've said thus far has gone over anyone's head.

Life exists here, therefore life can exist elsewhere.

That's true.

Varying degrees of life with varying degrees of attributes and intellects exist here, therefore varying degrees of life with varying degrees of attributes and intellects is a logical possibility and can't be ruled out of existence.

Which is why we don't rule them out of existence.

If we find an statue of an elephant on mars, do I need observable evidence of the potential designer or the design process to assume a designer could exist?. No I do not.

You should at least eliminate erosion as an explanation. Tool marks would be a good thing to have before you conclude design. You like logical possibilities so much, you should know that erosion resulting in something looking like a statue of an elephant is a logical possibility. It's a possibility that could probably be eliminated if the statue really is an artifact of intelligence.

And proving the existence of the elephants designer is unfalsifiable, yet ID is not rejected based on logical inferences of design.

If there are tool marks, the nonID hypothesis will have been falsified.

Now if you want to be inundated with "appearance of design" quotes from evolutionary science, ill be happy to give them to you.

I'll take your word for your ability to be educated enough to be aware of them while simultaneously being ignorant enough not to see how to apply them.

Did I say that?. No. I said because its logically possible, it can't be rejected as atheism does.

That's not what atheism does. Atheism doesn't do anything. It's the state of not holding any beliefs that any gods are real.

If God is logically possible, it then goes without saying to reject what can be logically possible is illogical in its self, just as rejecting all other possible life in the universe (big or small) is illogical.

It's logically possible that there is no God. By your reasoning that means it is illogical to reject that proposition. The problem isn't with logic itself though, but your misuse of it.

Oh but you do, because you believe a primordial soup gave rise to a single cell, and a single cell gave rise to progressively more intelligent life forms with a wider range of attributes. Therefore your own theory (if true) indicates it is "physically possible".

A god-like intelligence? It's theoretically possible, which doesn't mean that it's actually possible. I expect it is, though. It's not within the normal bounds of theism, you'll be hard-pressed to find another theist who considers advanced aliens to be gods. However, you can find atheists who do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism

I observe a wide range of intellects co-existing, thus logically assume a wide range can exist throughout the universe, and beyond. Which is independent of how they became a wide range of intellects.

A wide range CAN exist and probably does. A superhuman intelligence might exist. That wouldn't make it God. We'll probably have superhuman intelligences at our beck and call in thirty years (unless that goes horribly wrong). Mere intelligence doesn't make something worthy of worship.

Merely creating a universe doesn't either, btw. Here's a couple of scenarios for a non-god intelligent creator: a technician at a supercollider creates a universe by accident. A physicist at a supercollider creates a universe on purpose. A programmer presses the 'simulate universe' app on a smart phone 300 years from now. It's hard to think of any being that creates a universe using a apparatus as a god in the sense meant by deists and theists.