If I were an Atheist

[Drew_2013]

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 fact that life exists is not evidence for a god of any kind. In the physical world, it is common to find pockets of order within a sea of disorder. Life is something that requires a very specific and fortunate set of circumstances to occur, but in a system the size and age of the Universe, it isn't hard to see how a complicated system can occur due to the results of "random" processes. We only think we are special in some way because we have the ability to think. 

Life existing doesn't mean the purpose of the universe was to create life. If something designed the universe this way, they did an awful job, since the likelihood of life occurring at a given place is minuscule. 

Your window analogy is poor at best. Apply Occam's razor; the simplest solution is most likely the correct one. For the window, it is much more likely that someone opened it than a freak gust of wind with sufficient energy came along and blew it open. If the latter was the case, you'd probably notice stuff like fallen over buildings, or mislaid farm animals. In the case of life, the simpler solution is that it is the result of an entirely possible (though unlikely) set of events, rather than it being the work of a extra-dimensional super-powerful being that defies all logic and science. 

I have my own version of Occam's razor...if its not a fact it doesn't exist. We have no idea if life is teeming in the universe or we are the only living creatures so we can't consider that. Our existence is a fact. Whether the only life we know to exist is the result of a random process is the question at hand. Even if we assume that life began as the result of some unknown (but naturalistic process) a myriad of universal conditions must obtain for that to occur. Given the conditions in the universe that allow for stars and subsequently planets to exist then we can say given enough stars and planets other earth like planets almost certainly exist. So whatever the conditions were that caused life to happen on earth could potentially occur on other earth like planets just by sheer happenstance. However the universal conditions that allow for a earth like planet to exist are far more problematic. For that to occur by a random process we have to inject a naturalism in the gaps argument that just like earth is one of a astronomical amount of planets with varying conditions this is one of a shit load of universes with differing attributes. The reason I say its a naturalism in the gaps argument is because;

1. We don't know if other universes exist.
2. We don't know if they do exist that the characteristics are variable.

Lastly according to my version of Occams razor if its not a fact it doesn't exist. Its not a fact other universes exist. The only universe we can factually point to is this one. Speaking from facts...
1. We only know of one universe
2. It requires exacting conditions not only for life to occur but for stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets to occur.

So mind boggling exacting are the conditions necessary for a planet to cause and maintain life long enough for sentience to occur that many physicists think of this evidence in favor of design as evidence this is one of an infinitude of universes. Lets examine what needs to occur just for an earth like planet to exist. First up a universe has to some how come into existence. When we say natural processes exist what we're referring to is matter, the law of physics, gravity and the other forces of nature. Its believed by scientists that these natural processes came into existence about 13.8 billion years ago. I don't know of any scientist or any scientific theory that suggests that the laws of nature and matter always existed or that they caused their own existence; it would be difficult to imagine that the laws of nature that now exist caused there own existence before they came into existence.

Okay so no one knows how the existence of the laws of nature we now observe came into existence. However they came to be, atheists maintain no Creator or designer was behind it either through a lack of belief or disbelief as the case may be. Although some atheists I have run across have suggested the universe itself may have come into existence uncaused out of nothing no one I know of suggests the earth came into existence uncaused out of nothing. The way our planet came about is (along time ago in a galaxy far far away) a massive star went super nova, blew off all its gas and in a process caused by the laws of nature turned helium and hydrogen into exotic matter that could then become (some day in the fullness of time) planet material. This blown off gas along with exotic matter formed a disk the center of which became a star which became our sun. This process alone requires the laws of physics to be thus and so. Not that the laws of physics care one way or another how they turn out, or if they produce stars, galaxies of planets. For any of this to happen a phenomenon known as gravity must exist. How fortunate is it (for us) that if matter exists at all it has this quality that causes it to attract other matter. Even more fortunate for us that its a relatively weak force that allows for the existence of things like stars, galaxies and planets. Considering it wasn't designed or deliberately caused to be the strength it is I don't think there are words that can accurately describe how fortunate that was (for us). To the best of our knowledge the strength of gravity is a constant, the same everywhere. That was a lucky break...whew. So now we have a disk with rocky (and gaseous) material floating around the disk the center of which becomes our Sun. It takes millions of years for the earth to form but for life to occur (in the only known form it exists) it requires water, lots of water. But there is no water on earth, not a drop. Somehow (fortunate for us) water got here and lots of it. The theory is that water was delivered by comets that relentlessly pummeled the earth and filled it with water enough to create oceans. Wow that was a lucky break that something that would destroy all life was responsible for allowing life. Fortunate also that water in ice form floats or runaway glaciation would occur. The other thing we need for life to occur is for a sun to shine on the earth for life giving processes to start. Unfortunately, the Sun's close proximity to earth and the radiation it delivers would also destroy any life. Thank God...excuse me I mean thank the fortuitous laws of nature that dictate if a planet has a iron core spinning around fast enough it produces a magnetic field that shields the earth from the harmful rays of the sun. On the other hand, thank blind unguided laws of nature that the Sun does produce solar wind which though harmful to us protects us from cosmic rays blasting through the universe which would also destroy us. None of these are circumstances that can be accounted by the random conditions within various solar systems. These are universal characteristics that to the best of our knowledge only had once shot to be what they are. That brings us to another naturalism in the gaps argument I occasionally hear. Maybe if a universe exists for some unknown reason it has to have the characteristics that cause life to exist. That line of reasoning is a kick in the head from folks who normally claim we are the result of the unintended laws of physics that just happened to be as they are. One reason why they would have to be as they are is because they were designed to be that way...


Is it really less miraculous to think we are the result of design then to think that mindless lifeless forces minus any plan or intent to cause themselves to exist in the first place would later turn into a phenomena that produces sentient life? Minus some reasonable explanation, model or theory why should anyone reject the former for the latter?