Answers needed

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This is incorrect. An atheist 'believes', to varying degrees, that we do not know how life (the universe, theoretical paradigms on the origin of life on earth are pretty robust at this point but naturally need further evidence and theorising to clarify) came into existence. Occam's razor precludes a god explanation though naturally the only logically consistent answer for atheists and theists alike is 'nobody knows'. Some atheists may say there is definitely no god, most will say they don't know but there's currently no reason to believe there is.

Irreducible complexity as a thesis for God has been debunked so many times on this forum alone it's not even fun to do it anymore.

Welcome To the forum.

OK. I may have just learned something new! But doesn't the definition of atheist mean that a god is not an available solution for the origin of the universe?

Not necessarily. Most atheists will agree that if irrefutable evidence (that which stands up to scrutiny and means of duplication) is forwarded, they would believe that a 'god' (however defined, in this context) exists. Worshiping and submission is another matter altogether, but as above, being an atheist doesn't preclude the idea that there could be a god or gods. It's just that, to date, for me personally, no deity thesis ever forwarded has come even anywhere near close to convincing me there might be something to their claims.

Also, did you know that William of Ockham was a Franciscan friar? :-) I would recommend a deeper study of his theology before using him to disprove God. In fact, his razor has been used in certain dark regions of cosmology to support the idea of God. (!?)

Yes, I did. Occam's razor is a famous argument of parsimony in which the easiest/simplest explanation is taken in lieu of other, wooly, tangential explanations that seek the same end. In this case, "The universe exists because of god. God made it come into being" is re-written in light of the evidence as "The Universe exists. It came into being."

His theological disposition is irrelevant in the grander scheme of using it a way to smite the logical fallacies of personal incredulity and argument from ignorance (among others). I'm sure his beliefs were fascinating, but they have no impact on his razor.

I'll forgive your lack of interest in Behe. 

Do not confuse my dismissal of the thoroughly debunked Behe as lack of interest. His thesis has been debated for 2 decades since he forwarded it. It's just, at it's heart, it's an argument from personal incredulity. It falls apart because his hypothesis is "this is complicated therefore god", when really, even if we take that as given, and that we agree a 'god' created it, that still doesn't give us an answer as to how x or y was created, what systems were involved, or a methodology. It forces us to accept and believe a non-answer as an answer.