Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[polymath257]

In Quantum Mechanics, there is causality, but it doesn't mean what Kloro thinks it means.

Initial conditions determine the probabilities of "caused" events, but do not determine the actual events themselves.

This only means that we don't have access to enough information to pinpoint the causes of these events. Still, no good reason to reject causality. 

Merely assigning probabilities may be an expression of our limited knowledge. Only the all-knowing God determines the actual events, a theist can easily argue along these lines

It is more than that. To have the correlations between the probabilities be as they are observed, classical causation has to be false. it isn't simply a matter of lack of information. it goes considerably deeper.

Saying that an all-knowing deity is the only one that can know the actual events is simply saying you assume causation to prove the existence of your deity. it isn't something that can be demonstrated empirically. it isn't something that is necessary to explain what we see. it is used only to uphold your theology.

And at that point, I choose the simpler explanation: causality fails and so does the existence of any deity.

---

By all empirical logic, god does not exist. 

"Empirical logic" can only inform us about stuff inside the empirical world, but doesn't apply to the creator of the empirical world..

Why not? If there is no empirical way to demonstrate its existence, why assume it exists?

First, prove the god exists. 

As I said in the other thread:

I have the perceptual experience of an external world, therefore I posit the existence of an external world.
There appears to be other people than myself, therefore it's reasonable to posit the existence of other people.
There appears to be design, therefore it's reasonable to posit a designer.

Anyone who disputes the fact that our perceptual experience of order in nature strongly point to a deisgner of the world is either dishonest or denying their senses.

I strongly disagree. The actual observations actually point to natural processes and not to a designer. If anything point *away* from a designer, not towards one.