If I were an Atheist

[Ravenshire]

---

Slight correction: few atheists attack theory 1 as much as they simply point out that there is no evidence to support it.  Theists want to force theory 1 into acceptance because it fits into a gap in human knowledge.  But as history has shown, whenever we learn anything about our world or universe that previously had a supernatural explanation, the actual explanation is natural.  The attempt to create a single alternative that is easily debunked is a transparent attempt to support theory 1 by implying that the only possible alternative is less probable.  This is far more dishonest than admitting that we don't know.

The "looks designed" and "fine tuned" arguments are quite poor in determining the possible existence of a creative force.  And as was pointed out, those arguments only get us to "a creator" at best.  If a believer in a particular god is reduced to word games and logical fallacies simply to get to "god has to exist," he has already marginalized his own theory and does not need any help from an atheist.

Atheists claim there is no evidence and then contort themselves attempting to explain away facts (evidence) in favor of theism. The fact alone the universe and sentient life exists is evidence that favors the theistic theory over we're the result of mindless mechanistic forces theory. I know the 'no evidence' claim of atheists is a hallowed and sacred doctrine. That doesn't make it true. What would you point to as evidence we are the result of natural forces that didn't intend sentient humans to exist? You might argue the laws of physics account for the existence of the universe, stars and planets and ultimately humans. Fine, that can be used as evidence that favors your conclusion. I can use the same fact and argue its evidence that favors my conclusion. The fact there are laws of nature that allow a universe to develop and support human life is evidence they were purposely created and designed to do so. Why would mechanistic forces care if humans, planets or stars exist...they wouldn't.

Suppose we come into a room and we see a window is open. I claim the window was opened by someone, you claim the wind blew it open. At this point either conclusion is reasonable based on the available evidence. But suppose you also enter in the fact that tree limbs are broken outside the window, leaves and debris is all over the yard. Now your building a persuasive (albeit) circumstantial case that supports your contention. On the other hand if we don't see those things but observe fingerprints on the window then I would be making a persuasive case. However it would be nothing more than a debating tactic to argue there is no evidence a personal agent opened the window. You can say the evidence in favor of theism doesn't persuade you but since you're an atheist we already know that. Evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because it doesn't persuade you.

The "looks designed" and "fine tuned" arguments are quite poor in determining the possible existence of a creative force.

Again its a foregone conclusion anyone who calls themselves and atheist is going to say that. But that's exactly what one would look for if they suspect something was done intentionally. Its exactly what SETI is searching for in the universe to determine if intelligent beings are sending us a signal. They're looking for design structure in the broadcast as opposed to random signals and static.

---

Drew, I think it's best that you remain a theist. You obviously don't have either the knowledge to understand what is right in front of you or the desire to learn. You haven't even been able to figure out what atheism really is despite having it explained to you in detail. Please, go and enjoy your life as a sheep. You're well suited to that life.