If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Why on earth would any? If we thought there were any reasons to believe God exists that were good in the sense that they support the belief being true, we'd be theists, wouldn't we? And we're generally not kind to other atheists when they give stupid reasons for rejecting something.

---

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.

Actually it's based on the observation that it's been natural processes all the way down so far, and the conclusion that there are plausible explanations consistent with the known properties of the universe for the bootstrapping you describe, which you continuously act like you've never heard of such a thing despite the concept being introduced to you repeatedly in your conversations here. I know you have an alternate explanation, but your only argument against this one seems to be that it doesn't sound plausible to you, personally. And that is a fallacy. Even if you're right, your argument gives that possibility zero support.

---

If the former, how did we pass through an infinitude of past events to reach this event?

 First, establish that an infinite number of past events is impossible, using more than your intuition and appeal to ridicule. Second, demonstrate how a Creator avoids the same past event infinitude without employing special pleading. 

---

If the latter how do you distinguish that from a magical event?

 How do you determine that it is a magical event? Short of finding that the universe was spoken or thought or hand-waved into existence, what would lead someone to believe that magic was at work?  

---

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.

Yet here you are, doing just that. 

---

Lastly we have working models of theism. Designer/creators are the cause of virtual universes.

 I disagree that creators of virtual universes are enough like the capital 'c' Creator you've been talking about to make them analogous, especially the way you cherry-pick the one similarity and toss out all of the differences like they don't matter. If our universe actually is a simulation, and the creator of it just a person with some technology designed by someone else and no super powers, then our universe has a small 'c' creator...that would be adequate as a working model of theism only if you find 'Joe who imagined our universe and used tools at hand to make a simulation which seems real to the inhabitants' as genuinely equivalent to  the God of philosophical theism. Which of course still leaves the question of 'where did Joe come from'? 

---

Did virtual universes spring into existence uncaused out of nothing?

 No. Are your rhetorical questions a waste of the time it took to read them? Yes.  

---

Are virtual universes the result of an endless recession of events?

Their designers certainly didn't cause themselves. I appreciate you bringing this up, because it's one of the key differences between the Creator you are trying to invoke as the explanation for our universe, and the creators who are the explanation for virtual universes. The creators you are trying to make analogous to your Creator are themselves contingent, extremely limited and fragile,very flawed beings that could never accomplish their achievement without generation upon generation of predecessors, many of whom were intellectual giants compared to the typical 'virtuality' designer, making it possible. Your analogy is ultimately no more sophisticated than 'person make axe...bigger person must make mountain'.

---

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.

No kidding. Of course I don't believe it. It's a possibility. I have a policy, which I have made extremely explicit and clear to you, that one shouldn't believe something just because it is possible. There isn't enough evidence to believe any proposed scenario for the origin of the universe, including yours. And there's no reason to hold such a belief until the evidence is in. No proposed scenario for the origin of the universe amounts to much more than a philosophical point. Again, including yours. If you think 'picking a side' before the evidence is in is some sort of virtue, you're mistaken.   

---

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.

Of course you do. It involves your old nemesis, Logic.

---

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.

 That'll be the day. 

---

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?

 No, it isn't.

---

What do you call it when someone believes in something based on slight or uncertain evidence?

 Poor reasoning skills, usually. 
[/quote]

---

Isn't that referred to as an act of faith?

 If that's the reason for it, I suppose. I usually save 'act of faith' for someone who believes something despite understanding that the evidence doesn't really support the belief.