If I were an Atheist

[Drew_2013]

Reality Salesman,

Hello! From this point, I would like you to open your mind as wide as you can. Place your beliefs aside for a moment, and be willing to change your mind if something I say happens to make more sense than something you've previously thought. I assure you that I will do the same thing.

I'll open it wide enough to let new ideas in, closed enough to prevent my brains from falling out.

Unfalsifiable Hyptheses: Something that is confidently asserted as either a true or false even though the so called theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

I believe it was Karl Popper who introduced the notion a scientific theory has to be falsifiable, usually through some form of experimentation.

Notice that any attempt to demonstrate mail appearing in other cases that did not require prayer, the individual could still make the case that no proof has been offered to refute the specific case in which they believe prayer DID cause the arrival of mail. The problem is, there's no evidence that could possibly distinguish the regular arrival of mail from mail that arrives as a result of prayer. In conclusion, the normal arrival of mail is the only one to believe. Mail is a natural part of our culture, natural occurrences are all we see, you would need a reason to invoke supernatural stuff. Does this make sense?

Absolutely...

Again the reason the Santa to God analogy is poor (at best) is because the existence of Santa is easily falsified. If the point it show that the existence of God is as unfalsifiable as Santa they've chosen a poor example.

If it's falsifiable, [God hypothesis] then you must know what you would expect to find if it were not true. Give me an example of this sort of evidence.
I wouldn't expect to find anything, I wouldn't expect you or I to be alive. I wouldn't expect living sentient beings to emerge from mindless forces that didn't plan or intend our existence. I wouldn't expect to find a universe governed by seemingly inviolable laws of physics and that those laws would result in stars, galaxies, planets (from second generation stars with the properties to create rocky matter).

That's a circular argument. You say you are a Philosophical Theist, my friend, there isn't a PHIL101 text book that doesn't explain what it means to "beg the question" in the first chapter.

What's circular about it? Why make such a claim without any explanation? You asked me how things would be different if God didn't exist and I answered.

The default position is that the universe we see is entirely natural, and since there is no evidence for supernatural, the default position is that this is exactly the universe we would have that could be created by mindless forces. You've made an error by thinking this was the same question put to me in reverse, and I'll address that in a minute.

If anything this statement is an example of circular reasoning. Its assumes the existence of the universe is a natural event. Why is that? Because the supernatural doesn't occur. Secondly how do you demarcate between what is natural and what is supernatural?

The first problem with your question is that it is born from an unestablished presupposition. You are presupposing that a mind can produce universes, and you have no evidence to think that could even be partly true to begin with. Then you have concluded that EVERYTHING that exists, could not have a natural explanation, and so "minds" are true by default.

You're right I don't have mere evidence that mind can produce a universe...I have proof. Sentient humans beings with the use of computer technology can and have produced virtual universes. In those virtual universes in which humans are the gods they can tweak the laws of 'physics' to produce variable results. Not only do we have proof mind can create universes we know sentient humans beings are inclined to create such. Granted what human minds create are virtual universes and not what we think of as a real universe. But whose to say some day humans might not create a universe? By the way you seem to be making this argument by asserting what I have concluded, in other words making an argument on my behalf then shooting it down. I suspect you know exactly what kind of argument that is. My belief the universe is the product of mind comes from the characteristics of the universe not from an apriori conviction that only mind can produce universe.

Where did the mind come from? If the mind is infinite, how do you decide that the universe could not be infinite? We are very limited in our understanding of the universe, but everything we know about it thus far has a natural explanation

Correct me if I'm wrong but I assume by natural explanations you mean we can explain how something works and functions by appealing to the laws of physics. The reasoning then being that if something can be explained by natural laws no mind or supernatural agent is required. What about things we know to be designed and created by mind? Like a car or a computer. Can there function, characteristics and properties be explained by the laws of nature? Absolutely so if your premise is correct we should assume that natural mindless forces caused laptops and cars to exist unintentionally.

Would you expect such forces to produce sentient life?
Obviously, yes.

You'll have to clarify...what is it about mindless lifeless forces that would lead you to believe if they some how came into existence they would subsequently without plan or intent or a degree in engineering create a universe with exacting laws of nature that would subsequently produce something utterly unlike itself...life and mind? If you said obviously I think that did happen I could understand that because you don't think a personal agent is responsible. I can't however fathom why someone would think that if lifeless mindless forces somehow came into existence it wouldn't be surprising at all and in fact you'd expect such forces to create life and mind...

---

Tonus,

Based on that reasoning you would have to relegate nearly every single mythical god and creature to "opinion" status... including Santa Claus.

No because I don't merely lack belief in Santa I firmly disbelieve.

If I believe that something doesn't exist, and you cannot prove it does, then it's not unreasonable to believe that it doesn't exist.

There is nothing unreasonable for atheists to opine God doesn't exist and as I pointed out in the original post, there is evidence in support of that opinion. However as I have pointed out its not unreasonable to believe the universe and our existence was caused by a Creator and I have offered evidence in support of that belief. I don't attempt to disparage atheism by claiming they have no evidence in support of their belief and that they're just as liable to believe in santa claus and fairies as believe in the idea we owe our existence to non-God forces.

If sufficient evidence becomes available to prove its existence, then belief becomes the reasonable approach. This is how we operate in pretty much every other facet of our lives. Only when it comes to the possible existence of god(s) do we abandon the approach that has worked very well for us otherwise.

I believe there is sufficient evidence in favor of theism over competing explanations but insufficient to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not suggesting the approach should be abandoned.