If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

Indeed... Although, to be fair, I attribute a far lower likelihood to the possibility that some conscious entity willed the Universe into being, than to the possibility that it all happened through some unconscious process we are as yet unaware of.... or are just starting to unveil.

We experience unconscious processes all around us, every day.... we see galaxies and can trace their paths by assuming gravity and little else... The consciousness that wills everything into being would require that we first find it...

Its much more than just the existence of gravity. It is the fine balance between the strength of gravity and other forces. If the relative strength of gravity was only a little more or less the universe as we know it would be much different.

An except from Just Six Numbers.

https://sciencebits.wordpress.com/2008/0...-stronger/

Gravitation is feebler than the forces governing the microworld by the number N, about 10exp36. What would happen if it weren’t quite so weak? Imagine, for instance, a universe where gravity was ‘only’ 10EXP30 rather than 10EXP36 feebler than electric forces. Atoms and molecules would behave just as in our actual universe, but objects would not need to be so large before gravity became competitive with the other forces. The number of atoms needed to make a star (a gravitationally bound fusion reactor) would be a billion times less in this imagined universe. Planet masses would also be scaled down by a billion. Irrespective of whether these planets could retain steady orbits, the strength of gravity would stunt the evolutionary potential on them. In an imaginary strong-gravity world, even insects would need thick legs to support them, and no animals could get much larger. Gravity would crush anything as large as ourselves.

Galaxies would form much more quickly in such a universe, and would be miniaturized. Instead of the stars being widely dispersed, they would be so densely packed that close encounters would be frequent. This would in itself preclude stable planetary systems, because the orbits would be disturbed by passing stars — something that (fortunately for our Earth) is unlikely to happen in our own Solar System.

But what would preclude a complex ecosystem even more would be the limited time available for development. Heat would leak more quickly from these ‘mini-stars’: in this hypothetical strong-gravity world, stellar lifetimes would be a million times shorter. Instead of living for ten billion years, a typical star would live for about 10,000 years. A mini-Sun would burn faster, and would have exhausted its energy before even the first steps in organic evolution had got under way. Conditions for complex evolution would undoubtedly be less favourable if (leaving everything else unchanged) gravity were stronger. There wouldn’t be such a huge gulf as there is in our actual universe between the immense timespans of astronomical processes and the basic microphysical timescales for physical or chemical reactions. The converse, however, is that an even weaker gravity could allow even more elaborate and longer-lived structures to develop.

The difference between the two numbers is nearly infinitesimal yet the effect is disastrous and this is just one of 6 'constants' that have to be in a mind numbing narrow range for something like a life supporting universe to exist. The only 'naturalistic' explanation Rees can conjure is that this is one of an infinitude of universes (or universi) with variable parameters in which one was bound to have favorable characteristics to allow life and that's the one we find ourselves in. However that theory is pure naturalism in the gaps of our understanding. We don't know there are other universes and we don't know if they have variable parameters. It also has some bizarre implications. For example there would be a universe in which someone just like me and someone just like you exists only in that universe I may be an atheist and you may be a theist.

This is why its plain silly for atheists to claim there isn't a shred of evidence, not one fact anywhere that supports belief in theism. If someone makes such a claim in a debate before impartial people there going to get eaten alive.

One, there's no evidence any of those numbers could have been different. It's a thought exercise, sheer speculation. Since we don't know why they have the values they have in the first place, we have no way of knowing what the odds were. And why should an omnipotent being care about those six numbers? An omnipotent being doesn't require a specific set of physical constants in order for us to live in whatever universe it creates, if that's what it wants. If this is the only kind of universe in which we can live naturally, we are in the only kind of universe in which supernatural intervention is NOT required to explain our presence.

---

Atheists claim there is no evidence and then contort themselves attempting to explain away facts (evidence) in favor of theism.

A thought experiment is not a fact.

---

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.

This is a mere assertion, when it's  the very part that it's vital for you to support if you expect to be taken seriously, that your fact actually points to the particular conclusion that you favor. 

---

I know the 'no evidence' claim of atheists is a hallowed and sacred doctrine. That doesn't make it true.

You are right, that does not make it true. What makes the claim that it is highly unlikely that anyone has such evidence is that so far, no one has presented any such evidence. One person coming up with actual evidence of theism would quickly become world famous. You could end that 'mantra' forever by actually ponying up some evidence that theistic creation is more likely than a natural explanation for the origin of the universe.  

---

What would you point to as evidence we are the result of natural forces that didn't intend sentient humans to exist?

The actual and demonstrable existence of such forces comes to mind.

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.

If the same fact can be used to support multiple conclusions, it is not evidence. Evidence points to a particular conclusion being correct.

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.

No, it isn't. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Why would mechanistic forces care if humans, planets or stars exist...they wouldn't.

That is correct: They wouldn't, and they don't, and no one has claimed otherwise.

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.

If there is no evidence a personal agent opened the window, there is no evidence a personal agent opened the window. It's not a tactic, it's an observation. Without the fingerprints, it could as easily been the wind. Neither of us are justified in claiming the evidence is on our side in the question you posit. At least in this scenario, we know that personal agents who could have opened the window actually exist.

ou can say the evidence in favor of theism doesn't persuade you but since you're an atheist we already know that.

And that is the primary reason most of us are atheists, not because of a superior natural explanation.

Evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because it doesn't persuade you.

Non-evidence doesn't become evidence just because you can assert it supports your position.

Again its a foregone conclusion anyone who calls themselves and atheist is going to say that.

I wish it weren't a foregone conclusion that you were going to say something like that.

But that's exactly what one would look for if they suspect something was done intentionally.

Yes. Unfortunately for the theist view, what we find on closer examination is that superficial appearances of intentionality and design in nature are just that: superficial.

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.

How are they supposed to do that if you are correct in your claim that the whole universe shows design structure? The activities of intelligence are fundamentally different from the activities of undirected nature. That's how we can tell a laptop on a beach is artificial while the grains of sand are not...but you would have us believe the grains of sand are ALSO artificial.

---

The fact alone the universe and sentient life exists is evidence that favors the theistic theory

Instant murder of any possibility of an honest discussion.

Yah.

If the theistic theory is true, the universe and sentient life will exist.
The universe and sentient life exist.
Therefore the theistic theory is true.

So, in addition to being mere assertion, it affirms the consequent. This would also affirm the consequent:

If the naturaistic hypotheis is true, the universe and sentient life will exist.
The universe and sentient life exist.
Therefore the naturalistic hypothesis is true.

They're both just as valid as:

If I am David Duchovny, I can speak English.
I can speak English.
Therefore I am David Duchovny.

Fortunately I don't see anyone here foolish enough to argue the second syllogism.