Hello all,
Just to summarize this discussion.
The two best theories that attempt to account for the existence of the universe and the existence of humans is the following.
1. We are the result of plan, intention engineering and design by a Creator who intentionally caused the universe and life to exist.
2. We are the result of mechanistic forces that somehow came into existence and arbitrarily caused the universe and subsequently life to exist minus plan or intent to do so.
Most atheists in my experience don't defend or support theory 2. Instead they bash, marginalize and demonize theory 1 in an attempt to make it look foolish and then claim we don't know how the universe came into existence. The reason most atheists don't support or defend 2 is because theory 2 is inexplicable. They would have to defend the notion that mechanistic forces always existed and eventually turned into matter, caused time and the universe to exist. This would endow mechanistic forces with the divine attribute of always existing and working outside of time. The alternative is an act of magic in which mechanistic forces came into existence uncaused out of nothing. Although they would claim this is 'natural' which just means it doesn't involve a Creator which is really all supernatural means.
Even if we somehow swallow this explanation, it still leaves us with mindless unguided forces that for unknown reasons have laws of physics that allowed the simplest matter to turn into stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets. For planets to form a process of alchemy occurs inside stars that fuse hydrogen and helium into exotic matter that subsequently turns into second generation stars that have rocky planets. Then a myriad of exacting conditions occurs (minus any plan or intent) that eventually turn inert matter into life. In short theory 2 states we owe our existence to happenstance. If something isn't by plan or design what do you have left? Apart from mind nothing happens by design it all occurs by chance. I wrote in the OP the best arguments in favor of atheism (other than relentlessly bashing theism).
-There is no direct evidence a Creator caused the universe.
True but there are lots of things which only have circumstantial evidence in their favor, theism is a belief not a fact.
-The laws of physics over vast periods of time appear to have caused all the things we observe including our own existence.
True. But why are there any laws of physics never mind specific ones that allowed for the existence of planets and life?
-Much of the universe appears to be chaotic and unguided.
True. But much of it also appears to be designed and engineered to produce specific results.
-Evolution appears to account for how living things developed on going complexity.
To the best of our knowledge evolution would only occur after life begins and only under a myriad of conditions already mentioned.
The problem with the bashing theism technique of justifying atheism is it only inspires the base, those who are already atheists or those who hate all religion. That is why atheism hasn't grown significantly in numbers in many years. A new approach would be to admit theism and atheism are beliefs, opinions about how our existence came about. Since no one knows for sure and no evidence rules out either theory there is no grounds to mock and ridicule one belief over the other.
Just to summarize this discussion.
The two best theories that attempt to account for the existence of the universe and the existence of humans is the following.
1. We are the result of plan, intention engineering and design by a Creator who intentionally caused the universe and life to exist.
2. We are the result of mechanistic forces that somehow came into existence and arbitrarily caused the universe and subsequently life to exist minus plan or intent to do so.
Most atheists in my experience don't defend or support theory 2. Instead they bash, marginalize and demonize theory 1 in an attempt to make it look foolish and then claim we don't know how the universe came into existence. The reason most atheists don't support or defend 2 is because theory 2 is inexplicable. They would have to defend the notion that mechanistic forces always existed and eventually turned into matter, caused time and the universe to exist. This would endow mechanistic forces with the divine attribute of always existing and working outside of time. The alternative is an act of magic in which mechanistic forces came into existence uncaused out of nothing. Although they would claim this is 'natural' which just means it doesn't involve a Creator which is really all supernatural means.
Even if we somehow swallow this explanation, it still leaves us with mindless unguided forces that for unknown reasons have laws of physics that allowed the simplest matter to turn into stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets. For planets to form a process of alchemy occurs inside stars that fuse hydrogen and helium into exotic matter that subsequently turns into second generation stars that have rocky planets. Then a myriad of exacting conditions occurs (minus any plan or intent) that eventually turn inert matter into life. In short theory 2 states we owe our existence to happenstance. If something isn't by plan or design what do you have left? Apart from mind nothing happens by design it all occurs by chance. I wrote in the OP the best arguments in favor of atheism (other than relentlessly bashing theism).
-There is no direct evidence a Creator caused the universe.
True but there are lots of things which only have circumstantial evidence in their favor, theism is a belief not a fact.
-The laws of physics over vast periods of time appear to have caused all the things we observe including our own existence.
True. But why are there any laws of physics never mind specific ones that allowed for the existence of planets and life?
-Much of the universe appears to be chaotic and unguided.
True. But much of it also appears to be designed and engineered to produce specific results.
-Evolution appears to account for how living things developed on going complexity.
To the best of our knowledge evolution would only occur after life begins and only under a myriad of conditions already mentioned.
The problem with the bashing theism technique of justifying atheism is it only inspires the base, those who are already atheists or those who hate all religion. That is why atheism hasn't grown significantly in numbers in many years. A new approach would be to admit theism and atheism are beliefs, opinions about how our existence came about. Since no one knows for sure and no evidence rules out either theory there is no grounds to mock and ridicule one belief over the other.
