The Case for Atheism

[Mister Agenda]

First point, I'm a non-religious person who believes in theism the belief we owe our existence to a transcendent being commonly referred to as God.

You're describing mere deism. To rise to the level of theism, you must believe in a God that continues to intervene in the course of events rather than just setting them in motion.

I accept the fact I should offer reasons and facts to support that belief and I have made my case in this forum. Atheists have been shown circumstantial and inferential evidence that does in many cases lead a sane and rational person to conclude we are the result of plan and design.

And in many cases does not, and the main factor that seems to be at work on whether it's convincing is already believing it. It is the nature of actual evidence to lead people who are initially skeptical to the conclusion the evidence supports. If it doesn't have that effect, it's most likely because it doesn't point to the conclusion you think it does.

If as you say atheism is not a faith or a belief but is a disbelief and a rejection then that is a knowledge claim that God doesn't exist and therefore some other cause is responsible for our existence.

Not believing your claim isn't the same thing as believing the opposite of it. Noting your belief isn't justified by reason and evidence doesn't mean you're not right, it just means that if you are right, it's only by coincidence.

However the majority of your weak kneeded fellow atheists in this forum won't even state for the record God doesn't exist. There only willing to say they doubt that claim.

Same as for leprechauns and ghosts. Not making absolute claims we can't prove is a characteristic of rationalists. At some point you might consider accepting that instead of whining about it.

I responded to the majority of objections which were merely opinions to begin with.

That your conclusions didn't follow from your premises is a fact. A provable claim, btw.

Barring smoking gun irrefutable evidence you can always say they have failed to shoulder the burden of proof.

Refutable evidence isn't actually evidence at all.

Theism is a belief just as naturalism is. Even though most atheists believe the universe and life is the result of mindless forces that didn't plan or intend our existence they also know it is very difficult to defend that belief.

The sum total of scientific knowledge has revealed only mindless forces that didn't plan or intend our existence, and considerable evidence for how that happened, with no real scientific mysteries remaining that aren't prior to 3.5 billion years ago. The evidence is a little stale, but inferentially, it's reasonable to conclude that new information will continue to support natural explanations, of which there are many plausible ones that don't require transcendant beings.

The problem is the word atheism and the claim to be an atheist in the popular lexicon (and dictionary definition) doesn't mean I don't know and is a confession of ignorance.

Um, if it DOESN'T mean 'I don't know', it's not a confession of ignorance. You can't have it both ways. But you're right, it doesn't mean 'I don't know'. It means 'I don't believe'.

To anyone on the street atheist means a person who doesn't believe God exists.

You're just saying that to make me think you finally get it.

Secondly, I've never stated theism as anything other than a belief based on circumstantial and inferential evidence.

You should have stopped at 'belief'. It's no more justified by circumstantial and inferential evidence than belief in guardian ancestor spirits is. 'That lion nearly killed me!' 'See, that PROVES you have a guardian ancestor spirit, you dumb skeptic!'

The truth is by claiming to be an atheist you promote the belief God doesnt' exist even though your unwilling to defend or support that belief.

Yet atheist after atheist will tell you and anyone that asks that their position is not a belief that God doesn't exist. We're working like horses here to try to convince people that atheism isn't the belief God doesn't exist, and I don't see how it's our fault that some people reject our claim about what we do and don't believe. Even strong atheists who are really certain God doesn't exist almost always acknowledge that the definition of atheist includes those who merely lack belief in any God or gods.

I made it up [Argumentus Classificatious] in response to the notion that merely labeling an argument in a certain category makes it a fallacy. Almost all arguments fall into some type of argument. An Ad hom argument is a type of argument but in some cases is fully justified.

If the argument is correctly identified as a fallacy, it is fallacious. When an ad hom is justified, it's not a fallacy in that case. If an argument of yours is mistakenly classified as a fallacy, it can be defended by showing how it is not a fallacy. Complaining that we're finding lots of fallacies in your arguments isn't a defence of your arguments.

It is good for me and anyone to examine both sides of a question rather than hold one side to a standard and give the preferred explanation a pass.

It would certainly be refreshing if you did that.

The claim of atheism, not just as a lack of belief dodge, but if true that we don't owe our existence to a Creator but instead owe the existence of the universe to mindless forces that didn't intend, design or plan our existence is at least if not more difficult to believe then the belief it was intentionally caused to exist.

The only claim inherent in atheism is that atheists don't believe in gods.

The fact you and many atheists refuse to defend atheism on that basis is because you know and I know there is precious little evidence to defend that belief.

As little as there is to defend belief that other things that are probably imaginary don't exist.

It is you who must not think too highly of alternative biological and cosmological explanations or you would be willing to say in your opinion God doesn't exist.

As a rationalist, I'm not willing to say leprechauns don't exist if I can't prove it. God is not special in that regard.

Evidently in your mind the evidence against the existence of God and the evidence in favor of alternative explanations is so weak that even you as an atheist are unwilling to opine God doesn't exist and thats just stating it as an opinion.

Actually, it's the lack of convincing evidence for God and that the plentiful convincing evidence for alternative explanations (at least in comparison) is so strong that I am unable to opine that God DOES exist. However, God hasn't been entirely eliminated as a possibility, and cannot be, as the concept is defined as scientifically unfalsifiable. Unfortunately, something that can't be proven false, at least hypothetically, can't be proven true.

If as you say you don't find biological and cosmological explanations improbable, then you shoudln't have a problem with rendering the opinion God doesn't exist.

Do to intellectual honesty, I have a problem rendering the opinion that invisible pixies aren't behind it all. I do think that's a highly improbable explanation not based on reason and evidence...which is exactly what I think about the God explanation.

Isn't this ironic? I am essentialy arguing with an atheist over the existence of God and it is the atheist who is unwilling to deny the existence of God.

Is that what it's called when people don't conveniently fit in the boxes you've made for them?

What I really suspect is your being disengenous and your using the weak atheist gambit as a dodge.

And THAT is an ad hominem fallacy (circumstantial).

I believe you are confident that God doesn't exist and some mechanistic non-god explanation for our existence will prevail you just don't want to make a case so you hide behind the weak atheist ruse.

I believe it's a remarkably consistent state of affairs that liars are the people most likely to think other people are lying.

Why not? Its the best of both worlds you get to enter the thought into the market place of ideas that God doesn't exist while refusing to make the case.

The consistent failure of theists to make the case IS the case against theism. You've made a claim, presented the reasons, and the reasons you give do not logically lead to the conclusion that a transcendant being created the universe and engineered life. We've carefully examined the claims, been very specific about where and how they fail, at which point someone able to follow logic should be able to point out the flaws in our counter-arguments, if there are any. There's no shame in not being able to out-do Acquinas, ever since people started using arguments to try to prove God exists, they have been seriously flawed. That you can't do any better is no reflection on your ability.

So it's fair to say you lack belief in any existing alternative biological or cosmological theory just as you lack belief in the existence of God but you prefer such explanations (even if at the moment you lack belief in them) based on the notion they're based on phyiscal evidence and math.

They require fewer unjustified assumptions, which makes natural explanations based on the available evidence and no mathematical contradiction more probable.

I based my conclusion on physical evidence and cited the fact the universe is explicable in mathematical terms and unlike weak athiests I made my case based on evidence.

You attempted to make a case based on evidence, but you did not succeed. Math is what we use to describe the universe, if the universe was different in a way that still allowed us to exist, we would just use different math.

I have to think I believe more in theism than you do atheism.

To say you believe more in theism is saying you believe more in believing in God...not saying you believe more in God. I'm inclined to think that's a truer statement than you intended. Theism and atheism both exist as a matter of fact. I don't consider 'believing harder' in something than the evidence warrants to be a virtue...certainly nothing to crow about.

I think its fair to say you lack belief in atheism also yet you claim if I lack belief in alternate explanations (as you yourself apparently do) its personal incredulity.

It isn't fair, as I actually do believe atheism exists, since it is proven by the existence of atheists, as the existenc of theism is by the existence of theists. If you meant that I lack a positive belief in the nonexistence of God, you are correct. I haven't presented my lack of belief in your explanation as a reason not to belieive it. When you did, you committed a logical fallacy: you personally finding an alternative explanation hard to believe is in no way an argument against other people not believing it. It's like telling us you like peas: it's nice that you wanted to share your opinion with us but it doesn't add anything to the conversation.

You mean my lack of faith in alternate explanations that even you lack faith in at the moment is a fallacious argument? You wrote...

Given we won't latch on to one of the proposed explanations until there's more confirming evidence for it, which there may not be in our lifetimes, our skepticism of the natural explanations should be obvious.

I see so its a fallacious argument from personal incredulity when I express skepticism of alternate naturalistic explanations, but you refer to your lack of belief in such theories as skepticism. You are a pretty slippery customer Mr Agenda...

My previous observation about liars continues to apply. When I caricaturize belief in God as believing in some magical sky fairie who just poofed the universe into existence, you may fairly criticize me for using an argument from incredulity (as well as appeal to ridicule, which you also did in the statement which I criticized). Right now you're trying for tu quoque, but failing at that since I wasn't doing the same thing you did.

I don't see how you could since as an atheist (I use the term loosely) even you don't deny God exists, you don't subscribe to the belief, but you don't deny it either.

I deny that I have the belief, but I don't deny the existence of God. I just consider God very improbable.

I think the majority of people would be very surprised, even shocked to know there are atheists who don't deny God exists. That would be a revelation to most people...probably even some atheists.

The majority of people believe what people like you tell them about atheists. It's not like they couldn't find out by picking up a book on the topic...or polling atheists. Well, if you're any example, maybe they couldn't find out that way, but it isn't our fault.

I agree its not good science...by the same token there are ligitimate questions and critques that could be leveled at Darwinism.

I agree that what should be taught is the modern synthesis, Darwin didn't even know about genes. That would be like teaching 'Leeuwenhoekism' instead of modern microbiology. They're touched on for historical reasons, but we've made some progress in the field over nearly two centuries.

If theism isn't a reasonable belief (lets not play with words if it isn't reasonable then its unreasonable to believe it) then why are you unwilling to render the opinion God doesn't exist?

It's not a play on words, it is a fact that it can be reasonable to believe in something unreasonable. It depends on circumstances. Someone in that African village certainly isn't in a position to critically evaluate the claims of their culture without access to additional knowledge.

I acknowledge that I am reluctant to offer absolutes when I am not in a position to know everything necessary to formulate an absolute conclusion. I'm a little curious whether you have the capacity to accept that and move on or if you are obsessively compelled to whine about it.

Personally I can't think of any belief that's unreasonable to believe that I don't reject flat out and say I don't think its true.

And I should behave like you why?

If some beilef is unreasonable I don't merely lack belief or decline belief I disbelieve it.

You might want to think of a stronger word. The meanings of 'disbelief' include simply not believing, and you seem to think not believing stuff is just a refuge for the weak-kneed.

For example I don't think its reasonable to believe that stars such as in astrology have any predictive value or influence on human behavior. If asked to, I'd be happy to make a solid case why I don't think its true, why I don't believe it and why I think its false and unreasonable to believe in.

And I can produce experiments that conclusively falsify astrology. Believers in astrology have made the mistake of claiming things about it that could be verified if true. Theists propose a God that can't be tested.

I suspect it's because given the evidence we do have and the lack of evidence some other cause is responslible its not unreasonable to believe we are the result of a Creator.

Actually, it's because when evidence a creator didn't do something is found, believers just push its purview farther back (if they don't deny the evidence outright). The things God is supposed to be an explanation for get fewer and fewer, but believers continue to believe that someday we'll reach a point where it turns out they're right. God can't be disproven for exactly the same reason pixies can't be disproved: he's defined as something that can't be proven not to exist.

You do realize belief in theism isn't just held by folks in remote African villiages but by people in all walks of life of varying degrees of eduction including (according to polls) 10% of scientists.

Yes, I do. Why would you suppose otherwise?

Since your comparing such belief to Africans in a remote villiage who believe in witches do you merely lack belief in such practices but are unwilling to deny there may be something to it?

I can't prove they're wrong. If lack of evidence that spirits are real and plausible alternative explanations for the phenomena the spirits are supposed to explain is insufficient to convince them, I have nothing more to offer. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. All you can do is plant a seed and hope they can reason themselves out someday.

You're like many atheists who compare theism to belief in Santa Claus and Faires yet I assume you don't merely lack belief in such entities but you're willing to go out on a limb and render the opinion such entities don't exist, true? Of do you merely lack belief in fairies?

I merely lack belief in faeries. Do you remember that old addage about what you do when you assume?

[Tonus]

On what basis do you consider a Creator not being a possibility worth considering and what counter non-god explanation do you consider to be a much better explanation?

I don't believe in god, which is to say that I do not believe one exists. Having left religion and theistic belief behind, I have not found any compelling argument for the existence of one since then. The argument from design strikes me as just another gap. I have no counter explanation for the existence of the universe, and lacking one is not a compelling reason for me to believe in god. If the universe is the creation of a sentient being who will never make himself known, that's fine with me. Not knowing doesn't bother me.

[Mister Agenda]

Sounds like you've considered it.

[Tonus]

Sounds like you've considered it.

Couldn't help it.

[Sal]

Forget for but a moment that atheists have lack of beliefs in gods; are you afraid of not knowing? Generally speaking, of course.

Not at all, as a theist I have an opinion. An opinion is what you think is true minus irrefutable evidence its a fact. I could be wrong but I think its true we owe our existence to a Creator known as God. One would think calling yourself an athiest that it is your opinion God doesn't exist. The problem as I see it is atheists (for the sake of a debating tactic) have attempted to redefine atheism as a lack of belief in God not a disbelief in God. That statement is so nebulous, so vacuous that atheists no longer deny God exists they just don't share that belief. Think how little difference there is between our respective beliefs...I don't deny God exists either!

disbelief = lack of belief.

Doesn't matter what you want to call it, I describe myself as an atheist because I have no reason to believe in a creator of the Universe. I've yet to find any compelling evidence that couldn't be described by purely naturalistic means and understood through science.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Not at all, as a theist I have an opinion. An opinion is what you think is true minus irrefutable evidence its a fact. I could be wrong but I think its true we owe our existence to a Creator known as God. One would think calling yourself an athiest that it is your opinion God doesn't exist. The problem as I see it is atheists (for the sake of a debating tactic) have attempted to redefine atheism as a lack of belief in God not a disbelief in God. That statement is so nebulous, so vacuous that atheists no longer deny God exists they just don't share that belief. Think how little difference there is between our respective beliefs...I don't deny God exists either!

disbelief = lack of belief.

Doesn't matter what you want to call it, I describe myself as an atheist because I have no reason to believe in a creator of the Universe. I've yet to find any compelling evidence that couldn't be described by purely naturalistic means and understood through science.

This, 100%.

It was utter tripe the first time someone indicated that atheism was something other than the lack of belief, and its utter tripe now.

I'm sick to death of people telling me what I do[n't] believe. I lack a belief in all forms of god that claim to do something and that don't have evidence to back them up (every god...ever). So it could be said I don't believe in them. Wow, the semantics, who would get confused on such a simple point?

Oh...

[Mister Agenda]

One thing I'll say for Drew, though: he's not a hit-and-run and he doesn't stint on his replies, considering how outnumbered he is here.

[Angrboda]

[Drew_2013]

Mr. Agenda,

You're describing mere deism. To rise to the level of theism, you must believe in a God that continues to intervene in the course of events rather than just setting them in motion.

Deism is inclusive of theism, if deism isn't true then neither is theism. It shouldn't matter to the atheist who doesn't subscibe to deism either.

And in many cases does not, and the main factor that seems to be at work on whether it's convincing is already believing it. It is the nature of actual evidence to lead people who are initially skeptical to the conclusion the evidence supports. If it doesn't have that effect, it's most likely because it doesn't point to the conclusion you think it does.

I'd say far more often than not, the case fails when presented to folks who firmly atheists. If we present our respective cases to people who don't have an axe to grind, have no vested interest in whether we owe our existence to a creator or mindless forces that unintentionally caused our existence and who could fairly and objectively weigh the evidence the case for theism would prevail far more often than not. It's your weak atheism that will come back to bite you. You see you not only lack belief in the existence of God but as a weak atheist, you lack belief in the non-existence of God. How can you persaude anyone God doesn't exist when even you aren't convinced of that.

Not believing your claim isn't the same thing as believing the opposite of it. Noting your belief isn't justified by reason and evidence doesn't mean you're not right, it just means that if you are right, it's only by coincidence

.

Only in the world of atheism does not believing a light is on does not mean they believe the light is off. Its this kind of contorted logic that exemplifies atheism. You realize that to be an atheist you have to opine my belief in theism isn't justified by reason and evidence. You could hardly say it is justified but remain an atheist.

However the majority of your weak kneeded fellow atheists in this forum won't even state for the record God doesn't exist. There only willing to say they doubt that claim.

Same as for leprechauns and ghosts. Not making absolute claims we can't prove is a characteristic of rationalists. At some point you might consider accepting that instead of whining about it.

No, I prefer to whine thank you. I seriously doubt you only lack belief in leprechauns and ghosts but concede they might actually exist. Is that your position?

That your conclusions didn't follow from your premises is a fact. A provable claim, btw.

Does it surprise you in the least that my opponents in this case would state that my conclusions don't follow from the presmises? You seem to be oblivious to the reality that an atheist is always going to disagree with my belief, is always going to claim they have 'debunked' my arguments, is always going to say the evidence I present has no merit. You seem to be under this strange delusion that atheists are nuetral and objective about this issue and would happily agree with me if I only made a case. Does it surprise you that the head of the DNC always disagrees with the Republicans and vice a versa? Does it surprise you that lawyers on an opposing case will always claim there opponent has failed to make a case?

Refutable evidence isn't actually evidence at all.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Evidence are facts or objects that tend to support a contention. What will always be disputed is whether those facts or objects do in fact support a contention. You may recall the trial of OJ Simpson where the defense disputed every line of evidence the prosecution team presented.

The sum total of scientific knowledge has revealed only mindless forces that didn't plan or intend our existence, and considerable evidence for how that happened, with no real scientific mysteries remaining that aren't prior to 3.5 billion years ago. The evidence is a little stale, but inferentially, it's reasonable to conclude that new information will continue to support natural explanations, of which there are many plausible ones that don't require transcendant beings.

Actually Mr Agenda, it is a working philosphical assumption of scientists that our existence and that of the universe is the result of mindless forces that didn't intend our existence or that of the universe. If scientists had never seen a laptop but were tasked with finding out how it works they would invoke natural explanations for how it functions and that it does so by mindless forces. If your premise is correct we would falsely conclude that a laptop was created by mindless forces that didn't intend its existence.

You should have stopped at 'belief'. It's no more justified by circumstantial and inferential evidence than belief in guardian ancestor spirits is. 'That lion nearly killed me!' 'See, that PROVES you have a guardian ancestor spirit, you dumb skeptic!'

Mr Agenda, you seem to think your own opinion and conclusion settles this matter and that citing a self serving analogy proves it. Lets look at what we're really talking about as opposed to your dubious analogy. It's a fact the universe exists, life exists, sentient life exists and the conditions and laws of nature that allowed that to occur obtained. The question is whether those facts are best explained as the result of mindless forces that didn't intend themselves to exist, didn't intend life to exist, or sentient life or the laws of nature that allowed that to occur and that all that we observe is due to happenstance or that it was the result of plan and design. I spent several pages arguing with atheists over the point that the universe and our existence is the result of happenstance. True to atheist form they wanted it both ways, they wanted to deny the universe and the laws of nature were intentionally designed and engineered but they also wanted to deny that we owe our existence to happenstance. To have it both ways they once again have to contort logic and commonsense to some absurd degree that since there are laws of nature that account for why things are the way they are that therefore its not by happenstance. The only way to avoid our existence being the result of happenstance is if the laws of nature were engineered and designed to produce the result. If there is no one at the wheel and a car manages to drive itself from Seattle to Pittsburg its still by happenstance unless its remotely controlled. Your absurd analogy does however serve a purpose even if unintended, it provides a glimspe into the rationale of the atheist. If I just said atheists are detached from reality you and others would cuss me out left and right from pillar to post. But the fact you believe this analogy is representative of the theist atheist debate only underscores how detached from reality you and other atheists are.

Yet atheist after atheist will tell you and anyone that asks that their position is not a belief that God doesn't exist. We're working like horses here to try to convince people that atheism isn't the belief God doesn't exist, and I don't see how it's our fault that some people reject our claim about what we do and don't believe. Even strong atheists who are really certain God doesn't exist almost always acknowledge that the definition of atheist includes those who merely lack belief in any God or gods.

You need to get dictionaries to redifine atheism as well as many of your fellow atheists some of whom in this forum define it as a disbelief in God or gods. I think the reason so many atheists want to redefine it as a lack of belief is so they can say they don't have a claim to defend or support. The downside is the position becomes a nothing burger; the atheist lacks belief God exists but also 'lacks belief' God doesn't exist. It would mean in a survey that asks does God exist a weak atheist would have to put undecided since they're not sure if God exists or not. It also means atheists in that category should drop some of their favorite arguments such as there's no evidence of God. Why wouldn't you disbelieve in something with no evidence? If there was zero evidence I killed someone wouldn't you disbelieve it if someone claimed I killed someone? They should drop the comparison between God, Santa, and Faires after all am I supposed to beileve that atheists only lack belief in Santa Clause and fairies but concede they might actually exist? And if a survey asked does Santa exist they'd have to circle undecided. The weak atheist position is so weak its like calling a bowl of steam soup. If you actually believed the rediculous analogy you wrote above why would you only lack belief in God's existence?

If the argument is correctly identified as a fallacy, it is fallacious. When an ad hom is justified, it's not a fallacy in that case. If an argument of yours is mistakenly classified as a fallacy, it can be defended by showing how it is not a fallacy. Complaining that we're finding lots of fallacies in your arguments isn't a defence of your arguments.

In many instances you and others merely categorized my arguments as if that alone made them fallacious. In instances where an actual objection that might have merit was raised, I spent time rebutting it. Again whether your objection or my rebuttal was successful is decided by the undecided...not you or I. You continue to operate under the delusion that you and other atheists don't have a dog in this hunt and that your fair and objective.

It would certainly be refreshing if you did that [examine both sides of a question]

You look at your framing of this debate compared to my framing of this debate.

It's no more justified by circumstantial and inferential evidence than belief in guardian ancestor spirits is. 'That lion nearly killed me!' 'See, that PROVES you have a guardian ancestor spirit, you dumb skeptic!'

It's a fact the universe exists, life exists, sentient life exists and the conditions and laws of nature that allowed that to occur obtained. The question is whether those facts are best explained as the result of mindless forces that didn't intend themselves to exist, didn't intend life to exist, or sentient life or the laws of nature that allowed that to occur and that all that we observe is due to happenstance or that it was the result of plan and design.

I can prove that I have looked at this from both sides because unlilke many atheists I don't claim there is zero evidence in favor of naturalism. I don't compare belief in mindless forces that unintentionally created themselves and us to belief in fairies and Santa Claus. I don't make up absurd self serving analogies like some folks do. Lastly if atheists such as yourself lack belief in God, lack belief in no God and lack belief in naturaliism or materialism what other side is there for me to look at? I wrote this thread to give atheists a chance to make a case for me to look at...where is it?

The fact you and many atheists refuse to defend atheism on that basis is because you know and I know there is precious little evidence to defend that belief.

As little as there is to defend belief that other things that are probably imaginary don't exist.

Such as?

As a rationalist, I'm not willing to say leprechauns don't exist if I can't prove it. God is not special in that regard.

You can prove it. No matter what someone may attribute to the existence of leprechauns you can offer a better explanation. Thats why very few (if any) sane lucid rationale people believe leprechauns exist and the overwhelming majority of people (except you and few other rationalists) believe they don't exist. Once again you provide a glimpse into the atheist mindset...that belief in God and leprechauns are essentially the same. You fail to reason why so many people believe in the existence of God yet so few people believe in the existence of leprechauns yet to you there is little difference between the two. The reason for the difference in belief is because there is nothing attributed to leprechauns that can't be better explained and attributed to something else. In regards to the existence of the universe you don't have a better explanation or one that is more in evidence. If you did you and others would make a case.

Actually, it's the lack of convincing evidence for God and that the plentiful convincing evidence for alternative explanations (at least in comparison) is so strong that I am unable to opine that God DOES exist.

Great. I'm happy to hear it. The answer God is to the question why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a universe? What if anything caused it? Why did the conditions that caused planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies and ultimately sentient life obtain? If you have plentiful convincing evidence for alternative non-god explanations you're the guy I wanted to talk to.

Do to intellectual honesty, I have a problem rendering the opinion that invisible pixies aren't behind it all. I do think that's a highly improbable explanation not based on reason and evidence...which is exactly what I think about the God explanation.

The God explanation is that our existence and that of the universe isn't the result of magic, invisible pixies or the most incredible fortuitous stroke of luck imaginable but the result of plan, design and engineering. But I will wait for your convincing evidence that mindless forces without plan or intent caused themselves to exist and then proceeded to create a universe with the exacting conditions for planets, stars and ultimately something totally unlike itself to exist, life and sentience.

Thats all for now...

[Drew_2013]

Hello Tonus

I don't believe in god, which is to say that I do not believe one exists. Having left religion and theistic belief behind, I have not found any compelling argument for the existence of one since then. The argument from design strikes me as just another gap. I have no counter explanation for the existence of the universe, and lacking one is not a compelling reason for me to believe in god. If the universe is the creation of a sentient being who will never make himself known, that's fine with me. Not knowing doesn't bother me.

I've also abandoned organized religion, I practice theism in my own way. Throughout my life I haven't always been a theist either, at times I questioned the existence of God. The problem is I can't be an intellectually satisfied athesit. Its not hard to have a mere 'lack of belief' in God the problem comes in attempting to explain the existence of the universe, life and sentient life if in fact God (an intelligent Creator) really doesn't exist. To be confident in that belief I would need reason to believe that mindless forces somehow bootstrapped themselves into existence (or always existed*) then congealed into a universe with just the right characteristics for planest, stars, solar systems and galaxies to exist. Then I would have to believe that mindless lifeless forces without a plan, without intent or design or an engineering degree stumbled upon the formula to create something totally unlike the source it is alleged to have come from, life and mind. Most atheists avoid these questions like the plague. If anyone questions the ability of mindless lifeless forces to create a universe with life and mind its chalked up to personal incredulity, which actually means a lack of faith. If someone told me a laptop was created unintentionally by mindless forces I would be incredulous of such a claim (barring solid evidence such could or did occur), if someone told me the pyramids were the result of time and chance I'd be incredulous. If someone claimed they flipped a coin heads a thousand times in a row I would be skeptical of such a claim. I would suspect the coin was fixed somehow...wouldn't you?