If I were an Atheist

[Drew_2013]

Mister Agenda,

If you think we DO know how the universe came into existence, please enlighten us instead of whinging that we're not nice for pointing out the obvious glaring weakness in hypothesis 1, which is that there's no good reason to believe it is true.

Is any atheist going to say there are good reasons to believe God exists but we reject them out of hand anyway.

Some people never learn they're not mind readers. Hypothesis 1 is at least as inexplicable. It introduces an explanation that has never been demonstrated to be the actual explanation for anything. At least hypothesis 2 is based on the nature of the actual explanation for the origin of the universe not turning out to be of a completely different kind than the explanations for everything else.

The explanation that all phenomena observed is the result of natural processes is based on the assumption its mindless mechanistic processes all the way down to either an endless recession of events that eventually culminated into the events we are now witnessing or at some point natural forces bootstrapped themselves into existence uncaused out of nothing. If the former, how did we pass through an infinitude of past events to reach this event? If the latter how do you distinguish that from a magical event? Secondly things known to be caused by design also have naturalistic explanations for how they work. There is no need to invoke a designer/creator to explain how things work. Lastly we have working models of theism. Designer/creators are the cause of virtual universes. Did virtual universes spring into existence uncaused out of nothing? Are virtual universes the result of an endless recession of events?

Which actually seem to be attributes of quantum foam. If you consider those divine attributes, I suppose you ought to worship quantum foam. Quantum foam also seems to have the attribute of endless creativity. It's not a sure thing, but the math works and it's consistent with what we know of the universe, which is more than you can honestly say about your supposed Creator.

I'm not sure where your getting information about quantum foam but a quick search says its something theorized (with some evidence in its favor) to exist obviously at the quantum level within our universe.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11792.html

Wheeler imagined that this indeterminacy for space-time required that at the so-called Planck Scale of 10^-33 centimeters and 10^-43 seconds, space-time has a foaminess to it with sudden changes in its geometry into a wealth of complex shapes and textures. You would have quantum black holes appear at 10^-33 centimeters, then evaporate in 10^-43 seconds. Wormholes would form and dissolve, and later theorists even postulated 'baby universe' production could happen under these conditions.

The problem is that we have no evidence that 1) gravity is a quantum field and 2) that space-time has this type of structure at these scales.

I suspect Mr. Agenda you lack belief that quantum foam is the cause of the universe just as much as you lack belief in a personal agent as the cause of the universe yet your willing to throw out quantum foam as some kind of potential cause but purely on philosophical grounds.

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.

Yes, it is completely obvious that all you really have to argue against hypothesis 2 with is your own personal incredulity and appeal to ridicule. You needn't belabor it.

Personal incredulity I always have to laugh when atheists invoke that phrase. I'll post several definitions from sources so I won't get the usual accusation of making up a definition to suit me.

incredulity

(ˌɪnkrɪˈdjuːlɪtɪ)
n
1. lack of belief; scepticism

You're going to love this definition...

http://www.yourdictionary.com/incredulity

incredulity

   [in′krə do̵̅o̅′lə tē, -dyo̵̅o̅′-]
Use in a sentence

noun

1. The definition of incredulity is the state of not believing.
   An example of incredulity is the mindset of an atheist.
   

What you're accusing me of is having the mindset of an atheist only in regards to the belief our existence is the result of mechanistic processes that didn't intend our existence (or their own existence or the existence of the universe).

The antonym for incredulity is credulity. I put links in here just so I won't be accused of defining words to suit myself.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credulity

Full Definition of CREDULITY

:  readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence

Its hard to wrap my head around this but let me see if I have it right. I should be willing to believe that mindless mechanistic forces caused themselves to exist then caused a universe to exist with conditions for sentient life to exist especially based on slight or uncertain evidence. Is that how it works Mr. Agenda? What do you call it when someone believes in something based on slight or uncertain evidence? Isn't that referred to as an act of faith? Does that describe the attribute you have in regards to how our existence is the result of natural causes?