If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, blatanty lying about us is so cute that it deserves a cute emoticon.

That's another problem...no sense of humor.

You're presuming that what you said was actually funny. You presume a LOT of things, it's kind of your bag, but you consistently manage to do so in a way that doesn't even have the virtue of being amusing.

Good grief I put the smiley face in to give the clueless a clue it was a joke...and still you don't get it.

The smiley face just made you seem like more of an ass. Observe:

You're a lying sack of shit.

Do you think the smiley makes it funny and okay?

[FatAndFaithless]

The smiley face just made you seem like more of an ass.

(Example A: Drich)

[Whateverist]

Loud and clear. Loud and clear.

[Mister Agenda]

Absolutely...

Again the reason the Santa to God analogy is poor (at best) is because the existence of Santa is easily falsified.

Then falsify it.

If the point it show that the existence of God is as unfalsifiable as Santa they've chosen a poor example.

I disagree, but you can easily prove me wrong by falsifying Santa.

---

I wouldn't expect to find anything, I wouldn't expect you or I to be alive. I wouldn't expect living sentient beings to emerge from mindless forces that didn't plan or intend our existence. I wouldn't expect to find a universe governed by seemingly inviolable laws of physics and that those laws would result in stars, galaxies, planets (from second generation stars with the properties to create rocky matter).

Let me see if I've got this straight: existence, the thing that raises the question of why it exists, is your 'evidence' for why your particular explanation is true? That's exactly as good an argument for why, say, Paul Frampton's model for the origin of the universe is true. The difference is, it seems a little more obvious that Paul would be talking like an idiot if he said that if his model weren't true, 'I wouldn't expect anything' because science doesn't have the aura of 'it's okay to talk out of your ass' that theology does.

[Brian37]

If Christians think that they are the only to try to co opt science to prop up their sky hero, they would be wrong.

[Mister Agenda]

What's circular about it? Why make such a claim without any explanation? You asked me how things would be different if God didn't exist and I answered.

If only it had been a good answer.

If anything this statement is an example of circular reasoning. Its assumes the existence of the universe is a natural event. Why is that? Because the supernatural doesn't occur. Secondly how do you demarcate between what is natural and what is supernatural?

If only we had an example of something supernatural, that question might have an answer. As it is, saying 'the supernatural' created the universe is a lot like saying 'fizbinali' created the universe. It's a term without a referent to anything that can be demonstrated to actually exist. Until a 'supernatural' cause for something is discovered, 'natural' is all we've got, and it would be stupid to think a supernatural cause is finally the case when it's been natural causes all the way down up to this point.

You're right I don't have mere evidence that mind can produce a universe...I have proof. Sentient humans beings with the use of computer technology can and have produced virtual universes.

So you weren't talking about a disemboided mind acting with no technological appartatus. It's conceivable our universe is such a simulation, if that's the case, who do you worship? The person who designed the program or the person who pressed 'start universe'? And what is it that makes them worthy of your worship? I presume that if you don't consider one of these virtual universe designer people to be worthy of worship just for creating our 'virtual' universe, that you don't consider your proposed Creator worthy of worship just for creating the universe, either.

In those virtual universes in which humans are the gods they can tweak the laws of 'physics' to produce variable results. Not only do we have proof mind can create universes we know sentient humans beings are inclined to create such. Granted what human minds create are virtual universes and not what we think of as a real universe.

Plus, they need computers that are the result of generation upon generation of technological evolution.

But whose to say some day humans might not create a universe?

Conceivably, we may have already done so by accident in a super-collider. Does that make the person responsible the God of that universe? Do they have to share credit with the giants upon whose shoulders they stood? On the technicians who actually built the apparatus? Or does universe creation alone not qualify one to be considered a Creator God?

By the way you seem to be making this argument by asserting what I have concluded, in other words making an argument on my behalf then shooting it down.

If you recognize that is not exactly cricket, I hope you bear it in mind going forward.

I suspect you know exactly what kind of argument that is. My belief the universe is the product of mind comes from the characteristics of the universe not from an apriori conviction that only mind can produce universe.

What characteristics about the universe would be different if a mind did not create it? How do you know?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I assume by natural explanations you mean we can explain how something works and functions by appealing to the laws of physics. The reasoning then being that if something can be explained by natural laws no mind or supernatural agent is required. What about things we know to be designed and created by mind? Like a car or a computer.

What about them? We know them to be designed and built by (embodied) minds. That is what distinguishes them from everything else. You seem to be claiming that the quality that they have that distinguishes them from the natural world around them, their artificiality, implies that the natural world is also artificial. That conclusion not only does not follow, it blurs the line between artificial and natural to the point that each term loses its meaning.

Can there function, characteristics and properties be explained by the laws of nature?

Not without including the human beings who did the work and for whom the characteristics of the devices are useful. They would be very mysterious if discovered out in the woods 150 years ago and likely regarded as the product of supernatural forces or, perhaps, aliens. They certainly wouldn't be taken for natural objects.

Absolutely so if your premise is correct we should assume that natural mindless forces caused laptops and cars to exist unintentionally.

It is unnecessary to assume anything, since we know how they are manufactured. And their dissimilarities to natural objects are quite striking. Our (embodied) minds don't make things the way nature does.

You'll have to clarify...what is it about mindless lifeless forces that would lead you to believe if they some how came into existence they would subsequently without plan or intent or a degree in engineering create a universe with exacting laws of nature that would subsequently produce something utterly unlike itself...life and mind?

Because all the available physical evidence points in that direction. There is only one kind of universe that does NOT require a 'supernatural' explanation for our existence. The kind of universe we find ourselves in. An omnipotent being or even a virtual world designer is not limited to one kind of universe in order to have life in it. Either could have humans living in the interior of suns if they so desired. The parameters of the universe being conducive to life is not a consideration at all for an omnipotent creator.

If you said obviously I think that did happen I could understand that because you don't think a personal agent is responsible.

I used to think a personal agent was responsible. Plausible natural alternatives render such an agent unneccessary. That doesn't mean a creator wasn't involved, just that there is no evidence one actually was. Learning a bit about cosmology was one of the factors in my coming to lose belief in a creator, it was not a presumption with which I started.

I can't however fathom why someone would think that if lifeless mindless forces somehow came into existence it wouldn't be surprising at all and in fact you'd expect such forces to create life and mind...

I can't think of a rational reason to hold to a creator whose existence is unexplained and unexplainable to explain existence. I suppose if I did, I would still hold that belief. 'Why is there a God that created exactly the universe in which we find ourselves?' is a far greater mystery than 'why is there a universe?'.

No because I don't merely lack belief in Santa I firmly disbelieve.

Then, according to your own standards, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that Santa does not exist.

There is nothing unreasonable for atheists to opine God doesn't exist and as I pointed out in the original post, there is evidence in support of that opinion. However as I have pointed out its not unreasonable to believe the universe and our existence was caused by a Creator and I have offered evidence in support of that belief.

If it actually was reasonable to believe in a Creator, it wouldn't require any faith to do so, would it?

I don't attempt to disparage atheism by claiming they have no evidence in support of their belief and that they're just as liable to believe in santa claus and fairies as believe in the idea we owe our existence to non-God forces.

However, you are happy to disparage atheists in other ways.

I believe there is sufficient evidence in favor of theism over competing explanations but insufficient to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

You appear to have a gift for understatement.

I'm not suggesting the approach should be abandoned.

One of the most reasonable statements you've made.

---

Maybe quote the post where you believe you wronged him instead of speaking for other.

Are you quite happy to bully him and pick on him because he's a theist?

If you think that is the reason he's been getting flak, you haven't been paying attention at all.

---

Snakeoil

You claim you were making a joke. So, does that mean you finally recognize there is a difference between claiming there is no gawd and claiming not to believe in one? So far, I've seen no evidence that you understand the point.

Still not sure what you mean by gawd...is that just a disparaging way you spell it or do you mean something else.

A disparaging way to spell it. I think it is intended to mock some people's pronunciation of the name 'God'. I find it a little bit annoying myself, mainly just because I like words to be spelled (and capitalized) correctly and my mockery a little more high-brow.

---

This is from another post but I haven't addressed it because we really need to define supernatural first. You say the default position is what we see is entirely natural. At best that is a tautology.

Tautologies have the property of being true if any part of them is true. Saying something is a tautology isn't an argument against the tautology being true, only that the tautology basically says the same thing twice.

We define natural (in this case) by everything we have observed so far.

By everything we have observed so far being natural.

And note that you say mindless forces...whether natural or not. I suspect then you mean you believe the universe wasn't created by mind whether natural or supernatural.

The universe doesn't seem to require a mind as its explanation.

If so then supernatural mind is just a red herring.

Only if you're not proposing a supernatural mind as the Creator. If you're not, you should probably stop capitalizing 'creator'. Or rather, if it's a red herring, it appears to belong to you.

In spite of having no definition suppose the universe came into existence caused by forces completely different from the laws of nature we are familiar with.

For instance, if our universe is a simulation and the laws of nature in force for the programmer are significantly different because the programmer (so far as he, she, or it knows) are the real ones.

Since those forces caused our universe to exist (in this hypothetical) and are different from the laws of physics we are familiar with and are transcendent to them...would they not be characterized as supernatural?

They might seem supernatural from our point of view, but they would just be different natural laws from ours. I think 'supernatural' as it applies to this conversation would not be something subject to different natural laws, but something not subject to any natural laws at all, or perhaps something which determines moment to moment the natural laws of its environment. A creator like a virtual reality programming team would be outside of our apparent time-space continuum, and could easily appear god-like from our perspective, but they would not actually be supernatural beings in a meaningful sense.

In a lesser sense, suppose vampires were real and could turn into bats. If a person-sized creature can transform into a bat in a matter of moments with the excess mass disappearing to who-knows-where, that would be a supernatural event because it violates our laws of physics. If the transformation were accomplished in a way that didn't violate the laws of physics or the violation itself was accomplished in a way based on the regular laws of physics, it would turn out that this transformation isn't actually supernatural after all. Similarly, if the transformation occurred in another reality where mass isn't conserved, it would be natural for that reality. If the creator is to be considered both supernatural and omnipotent, I think it can't just be following a different set of natural laws, it has to be able to violate whatever natural laws it wants.

[Mister Agenda]

Salesman,

That's the exact same thing as me saying...
If Sauron didn't exist, I would expect to find nothing. You and I wouldn't be alive. There would be no stars or planets, etc etc etc.
We are alive and things exist, therefore Sauron must exist.

Except I didn't make the 'therefore Sauron (or God) must exist' . I didn't attempt to make a proof kind of statement out of it. I just offered an opinion.

The opinion that if God isn't real, you wouldn't expect to find those things. If that's a misrespresentation of your statement, please explain how.

For instance we could shoehorn the belief that mindless forces always existed or poofed into existence uncaused out of nothing kind of like magic and point to the existence of the universe that is what happened. The reason we could shoehorn these possible explanations is because the existence of the universe does demand some explanation and one of those three explanations is probably right.

1. The universe was intentionally caused and designed by a personal agent or Creator commonly referred to as God.
2. Mindless forces always existed in some form or another and over time (even if time didn't always exist) became the universe we now observe.
3. Mindless forces materialized out of nothing uncaused and turned into the universe we now observe.

We could shoehorn them all in because 'universe exists' supports each of them equally.

Someone is probably going to respond it could be some reason we haven't even thought of or could articulate but whose going to argue in favor of a position we can't articulate or fathom?

One of the most common arguments offered by atheists to justify their non-belief is the notion there is no evidence, not a shred, not a smidgen not one iota that a Creator (God) exists. I would say this is a foundational sacrosanct doctrine of atheism.

Because you can't make it three posts without saying something about atheism that isn't true?

Its also baloney. I went into this in depth in another thread but evidence are merely facts that comport with a belief.

That is absolutely NOT what evidence is. Mere comportment with belief is the minimum one would expect from reality for the belief to not be proven false, but multiple exclusive beliefs can be in comportment with reality as it is known thus far. To be evidence, something must support a particular conclusion and NOT other, mutually exclusive conclusions, equally.

Quoting myself from another thread.

One of the chief objections to theism cited by atheists is they claim there is no evidence in favor of theism. I am often re-assured that they are very open minded and would be happy to evaluate any such evidence if there was any. I agree that if indeed there is no evidence in favor of a claim that is a valid reason to decline belief in such a claim (although it by no means disproves such a claim). There is often confusion about what evidence is and what proof is. Evidence are facts or objects that support a conclusion.

That support a PARTICULAR conclusion. If the same 'evidence' can be used to back other mutually exclusive conclusions equally, it is not actually evidence at all.

For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is evidence that supports the conclusion the deceased was murdered. Typically the knife and pictures of the knife in the back of the deceased would be entered into evidence. A lot of evidence is circumstantial evidence.

Yep. If you had something that supported the conclusion that there is a Creator God and did not equally support any other conclusion, that would be evidence in favor of the conclusion that a Creator God is real. If substantiated, it would become global news, especially in theological circles.

From Wikipedia

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt)."

From free dictionary.com

"One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence."

The existence of the universe alone is evidence that God exists and theism is true.

Nothing you copy-pasta'd supports that statement.

[thee-iz-uh m]
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

Theists attribute to God the existence of the universe and I think all of us would agree the universe exists.

Naturalists attribute to natural forces the existence of the universe, and I think all of us would agree that the universe exists. I think all of us would agree that natural forces exist as well.

However that's just a foundational claim such as if I accused someone of murder, the first thing I would do is produce a body. However that evidence by itself would only prove someone died. I'd have to offer evidence the death was intentionally caused and then offer evidence that ties the accused to the murder. As it stands the existence of the universe (by itself) isn't better evidence then the alternate explanations.

Which is what makes it not evidence for the conclusion you want to reach.

2. Mindless forces always existed in some form or another and over time (even if time didn't always exist) became the universe we now observe.
3. Mindless forces materialized out of nothing uncaused and turned into the universe we now observe.

Explanation 2 and 3 are just as viable as the 1st explanation and the existence of the universe is evidence in favor of theism just as it is the other two explanations.

Just like the other two explanation are in favor of naturalism, I think you mean to say.

This is why the argument there is no evidence in support of theism isn't just a bad argument...its false.

One could not know that from the example you've given, in which the 'evidence' supports the opposite conclusion as well as it does yours.

I know I'm going to get a lot of feedback because the belief there is no evidence (facts) in favor of theism is damn near the first commandment of atheism.

1. There shall be no evidence in favor of theism!

That's only true as long as theists continue to fail to provide a single example of actual evidence that amounts to more than hearsay of supposed (and inconsistent) revelations. In your example, your supposed evidence does not lead to the conclusion that your proposition is true rather than the alternate propositions. It's an excellent example of something that might superficially seem to be evidence but actually is not.

And although you did not spell it out in the form of a syllogism, that is not actually necessary for your argument to contain a fallacy, in this case the fallacy of assuming the consquent.

If P, then Q.
Q, therefore P.

If a Creator God is real, the universe exists.
The universe exists, therefore God is real.

If I am Bill Gates, I am rich.
I am rich, therefore I am Bill Gates.

Why is it critical? Because if in fact there is no evidence of theism, theistic belief can be marginalized as nothing more than a faith claim.

And you wouldn't like that. You finding that undesireable has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is true or not.

God forbid if the atheist admits there is evidence in favor theism that would be tantamount to an admission there is an intellectual evidential reason to think theism is true.

Your appeal to motive also has nothing to do with whether your claim there is evidence that supports the conclusion that some Creator God is real is actually true. You can shoot us down in a heartbeat with something that actually constitutes evidence (and probably become a celebrity in the process). I'm sure if your fellow theists agreed you have found the magic bullet to making theism demonstrably reasonable, they will rally around you in droves. Unfortunately for you, those among your fellow theists whose opinions carry the most weight are sometimes actually well-versed on the topics of logic and evidence, and are very careful not to use arguments with holes they can't plug, and tend to be much more comfortable then you with the idea that their faith actually rests on faith.

Rhythm

Oh....kindly demonstrate that this is true? Do you have some argument as to the non-existence of Santa?

Of course if you define Santa as a mystical personal being that delivers presents world wide on Christmas eve with a flying sleigh lead by reindeer I can beyond a reasonable doubt provide a far superior explanation for the presents...can't you?

You've assumed that you're the one who gets to define Santa. Or rather, I suspect that seeing the force of the analogy between God and Santa, you're trying to deftly avoid the pit that you are suspended over due to having assumed the burden of proof on the matter.

I can easily disprove the existence of your Creator God if I'm the one who gets to define it.

My parents have told me all my life that Santa is real, and they wouldn't lie to me. Of course, if you take Santa too literally, you don't understand the sophisicated arguments for Santa's existence that persuade intelligent believers. Santa doesn't really deliver all the presents supernaturally via reindeer-drawn flying sleigh. That's symbolic. Santa mystically inspires millions of individual acts of generosity, kindness, and good will on Christmas Day. His workshop isn't at the North Pole, it's 'North of the North Pole' in a realm beyond time and space, which allows him to inspire all the world's celebrators of Christmas apparently simultaneously, visiting each one (invisibly and immaterially) on the same day.

If you don't believe this, it's likely that the spirit of Scrooge has hardened your heart to its self-evident truth.

Or, as a more airy alternative that's actually in circulation: Santa is the 'spirit of generosity', that part of us that is kind and giving. You believe there's a part of us that is kind and giving don't you? That's Santa, so you believe in Santa after all!

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]Of course if you define Santa as a mystical personal being that delivers presents world wide on Christmas eve with a flying sleigh lead by reindeer I can beyond a reasonable doubt provide a far superior explanation for the presents...can't you?

Ahem... Wrong. I'm sorry to tell you, but your parents apparently lied to you more than you knew. They told you about the wrong Santa, the heretic Santa. Maybe they didn't know any better, or maybe they minds were possessed by the Evil Santa. The actual Santa is nothing like your "definition" there, you poor misled little heathen...

Don't worry - maybe one day the One True Santa will find it in his wisdom to let you see the light of Rudolf's nose. Perhaps you should write him a letter about it next Christmas... And be a very, very good boy (girl?)...

[The Grand Nudger]

Rhythm

Oh....kindly demonstrate that this is true? Do you have some argument as to the non-existence of Santa?

Of course if you define Santa as a mystical personal being that delivers presents world wide on Christmas eve with a flying sleigh lead by reindeer I can beyond a reasonable doubt provide a far superior explanation for the presents...can't you?

Does it matter whether or not I can? You made the claim, you differentiated between the claims. Do work.

Tell me that you haven't disbelieved in Santa all this time....without that argument......?

[Drew_2013]

The Reality Salesman,

This is the definition you provided...

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Agree or disagree are there are many phenomena currently beyond scientific understanding true?
If there are, I do not know anything about them and neither do you.

Pretty sure of yourself aren't you? I can name two without even bothering to research.

There is a phenomenon known as the singularity in which according to scientists (not theists or religious zealots) the laws of physics as we know them break down or are not applicable. This phenomenon is associated with black holes and the big bang.

Another phenomena is known as Quantum entanglement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently—instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.

Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc. performed on entangled particles are found to be appropriately correlated. For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise. Because of the nature of quantum measurement, however, this behavior gives rise to effects that can appear paradoxical: any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as acting on that particle (e.g. by collapsing a number of superposed states); and in the case of entangled particles, such action must be on the entangled system as a whole. It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair "knows" what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.

I have a feeling a redefinition of supernatural is coming down the pike...

How do you know that it was caused to exist? Define the type of cause and it's properties, and then demonstrate how you know it is true. If you cannot, the most honest thing would be to say "I don't know" (Welcome to Atheism)

Okay I'll play. Lets hypothesize the universe is an uncaused phenomena. Is it a natural phenomena for things to come into existence uncaused? Is it scientifically explicable by appealing to known laws of physics? I suspect you don't actually believe the universe came into existence uncaused either. If the honest thing to say is I don't know then when I say is theism true you should respond I don't know. In which case atheism isn't an opinion God didn't cause the universe it can only be I don't know if God caused the universe to exist. Is that your position? You'd also have to say you don't know if supernatural phenomena occurs. But in spite of your profession of ignorance, you don't say I don't know if supernatural phenomena occurs and I don't know if an entity known as God exists and if God caused (created) the universe.

Not a complete one [understand of the human mind]. But we do have some understanding of what it is and what it is capable of doing. And to date, I don't believe a single one has been accredited the creation of an entire physical universe. So, why do you think that a mind could do that? Try to use something other than a circular argument this time...

I said as much that human minds (at this time) are only capable of producing virtual universes. The fact remains whether natural or supernatural mind can and does create universes. This means we have a working theistic model that explains the existence of virtual universes.

If we really are autonomous free will agents who can volitionally do things does that fall under the purview of the laws of nature?
I don't think there's even a chance that you and I are going to come to an understanding on the possible answer to this question. I don't know what your understanding of "free will" is. Before I answer, do you have an understanding of the differences between Determinism vs. Fatalism? If you believe that you are the conscious author of your thoughts and that you personally conjure each thing into consciousness and you are 100% aware of everything that compels your thoughts from one second to another, we should not even bother trying to converse about that last question...

Should I assume then you have no opinion regarding this matter?

YOU! You are doing that! You are arguing for a kind of entity that cannot be fathomed because it does NOT correlate with reality. THIS reality is NOT a host to any such a mind that poofs external physical objects into existence, and yet, you seem completely oblivious to that fact.

And you suggested the universe came into existence uncaused...not that I think you actually believe that either because how would we distinguish that from a magic act? It appears your only real objection is to the notion a mind caused the universe to exist (while claiming you also don't know how the universe came to exist)

In Criminal law, the subjects in question correlate with reality and if any good case is going to be put forth, it better be based on evidence that correlates with reality as well. In criminal law, every aspect involved is grounded in nature. Suppose I was on trial for murder and my alibi was that I was out playing golf with Elvis in a different Galaxy to celebrate my best Angel Friends birthday.

I posted 5 lines of evidence in favor of my belief in theism. The five were all based on indisputable known facts.

True to form I told you the claim there is no evidence in favor of theism is a sacred claim of atheists. Its bogus...but sacred. Atheists will always deny there are facts in support of theism because it is foundational to their claim of atheism. It is the first commandment of atheism.

1. There shalt be no evidence in favor of theism! Amen.

I on the other hand don't deny there is evidence (facts) that favor atheism. I listed them in the OP...

This underscores the real problem and why atheism isn't growing in numbers by leaps and bounds. Atheists don't like the belief we owe our existence to a Creator or a supernatural cause but they really have no alternate explanation that isn't itself supernatural so they spend most of their time mocking, ridiculing and bashing theism while having no plausible alternative that accounts for the existence of the universe or why it would produce sentient life.