If I were an Atheist

[robvalue]

1. You assume that there was any possibility things could have been any different to how they are. How do you justify this?
2. You have not demonstrated why they are how they are, you just say they are improbable therefor you can make up whatever explanation you want.

[Drew_2013]

Most atheists in my experience don't defend or support theory 2. Instead they bash, marginalize and demonize theory 1 in an attempt to make it look foolish and then claim we don't know how the universe came into existence.

Slight correction: few atheists attack theory 1 as much as they simply point out that there is no evidence to support it.  Theists want to force theory 1 into acceptance because it fits into a gap in human knowledge.  But as history has shown, whenever we learn anything about our world or universe that previously had a supernatural explanation, the actual explanation is natural.  The attempt to create a single alternative that is easily debunked is a transparent attempt to support theory 1 by implying that the only possible alternative is less probable.  This is far more dishonest than admitting that we don't know.

The "looks designed" and "fine tuned" arguments are quite poor in determining the possible existence of a creative force.  And as was pointed out, those arguments only get us to "a creator" at best.  If a believer in a particular god is reduced to word games and logical fallacies simply to get to "god has to exist," he has already marginalized his own theory and does not need any help from an atheist.

Atheists claim there is no evidence and then contort themselves attempting to explain away facts (evidence) in favor of theism. The fact alone the universe and sentient life exists is evidence that favors the theistic theory over we're the result of mindless mechanistic forces theory. I know the 'no evidence' claim of atheists is a hallowed and sacred doctrine. That doesn't make it true. What would you point to as evidence we are the result of natural forces that didn't intend sentient humans to exist? You might argue the laws of physics account for the existence of the universe, stars and planets and ultimately humans. Fine, that can be used as evidence that favors your conclusion. I can use the same fact and argue its evidence that favors my conclusion. The fact there are laws of nature that allow a universe to develop and support human life is evidence they were purposely created and designed to do so. Why would mechanistic forces care if humans, planets or stars exist...they wouldn't.

Suppose we come into a room and we see a window is open. I claim the window was opened by someone, you claim the wind blew it open. At this point either conclusion is reasonable based on the available evidence. But suppose you also enter in the fact that tree limbs are broken outside the window, leaves and debris is all over the yard. Now your building a persuasive (albeit) circumstantial case that supports your contention. On the other hand if we don't see those things but observe fingerprints on the window then I would be making a persuasive case. However it would be nothing more than a debating tactic to argue there is no evidence a personal agent opened the window. You can say the evidence in favor of theism doesn't persuade you but since you're an atheist we already know that. Evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because it doesn't persuade you.

The "looks designed" and "fine tuned" arguments are quite poor in determining the possible existence of a creative force.

Again its a foregone conclusion anyone who calls themselves and atheist is going to say that. But that's exactly what one would look for if they suspect something was done intentionally. Its exactly what SETI is searching for in the universe to determine if intelligent beings are sending us a signal. They're looking for design structure in the broadcast as opposed to random signals and static.

[FatAndFaithless]

The fact alone the universe and sentient life exists is evidence that favors the theistic theory

Instant murder of any possibility of an honest discussion.

[robvalue]

Drew, how about addressing a rebuttal rather than just making more assertions?

And please stop telling atheists what they believe and defend your own position.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Again its a foregone conclusion anyone who calls themselves and atheist is going to say that. But that's exactly what one would look for if they suspect something was done intentionally. Its exactly what SETI is searching for in the universe to determine if intelligent beings are sending us a signal. They're looking for design structure in the broadcast as opposed to random signals and static.

That's nonsense, and here's why:

If real SETI finds the sequence 8-5-12-12-15-5-1-18-20-8-12-9-14-7-19 repeated over and over and over again, they'll determine there are intelligent beings creating things.
If your version of SETI finds the sequence 8-5-12-12-15-5-1-18-20-8-12-9-14-7-19 repeated over and over and over again, they'll also determine there are intelligent beings creating things.


But

If real SETI finds the sequence 6-4-2-1-6-1-17-19-11-15-19-22-5-7-13-14-14-14-2-19-1-2-1 exactly once, they'll determine that they've got some random noise.
If your version of SETI finds the sequence 6-4-2-1-6-1-17-19-11-15-19-22-5-7-13-14-14-14-2-19-1-2-1 exactly once, they'll determine that the odds of that sequence occurring are, like, 1 in a hundred billion trillion, so Goddidit

[Tonus]

Atheists claim there is no evidence and then contort themselves attempting to explain away facts (evidence) in favor of theism.

If you regard "the universe and people exist" as a "fact in favor of theism" then I can understand why you feel the way you do.  However, neither of those is a fact in favor of anything.  They simply demonstrate that the universe and people exist, not how either got here.  Claiming its the result of a creator because it looks created is both circular and not compelling at all, since few things in the universe "appear created" except through the credulous eyes of the theist.  I don't use the fact of existence as evidence of the lack of a god.  The fact that we lack any evidence of god is sufficient.  If you have something more than emotional or circular beliefs, you are welcome to present them.  The forum does not lack for attempts to prove any of at least a few different gods or versions of god.  The inability to produce one is not due to a lack of effort, at least.

The "looks designed" and "fine tuning" arguments aren't poor because I want them to be poor.  They're poor because they rely either on emotion or on flawed reasoning to work.  The fine-tuning argument is particularly weak, as it assumes a great many things that we either do not or cannot know, and it also assumes that god is somehow restricted in his capabilities, which seems odd if we are to assume that he created reality itself.  I find that, like most theistic arguments, those are used because they're the best of a poor set of options.  Since god has inexplicably decided to disappear and leave humanity with, at best, an ambiguous set of instructions and a universe that is remarkably self-sufficient, it's pretty confounding to try and determine who he is and where he went.  Until he decides to show up again, I am content to live as if he was never there in the first place.

[robvalue]

Wow!

Now that was a smack down, nice work

Indeed! The idea that "things wouldn't work if stuff was different" does indeed sound like a restriction on an omnipotent God. I hadn't thought of that before. Surely Mr omnimax can make constants to be whatever he wants and still make things work. If not, he's at the mercy of mathematics or something?

And lets face it, how well suited is this universe to human life? It's not. Almost all of it is lethal to us, including much of our own planet.

I'm sick of these arguments which put forward God having to work around arbitrary restrictions (like a human would) when he's simultaneously being heralded as omnipotent. It's both childish and intellectually dishonest. Trying to mix fairy tales with reality does not work.

[Ravenshire]

---

Slight correction: few atheists attack theory 1 as much as they simply point out that there is no evidence to support it.  Theists want to force theory 1 into acceptance because it fits into a gap in human knowledge.  But as history has shown, whenever we learn anything about our world or universe that previously had a supernatural explanation, the actual explanation is natural.  The attempt to create a single alternative that is easily debunked is a transparent attempt to support theory 1 by implying that the only possible alternative is less probable.  This is far more dishonest than admitting that we don't know.

The "looks designed" and "fine tuned" arguments are quite poor in determining the possible existence of a creative force.  And as was pointed out, those arguments only get us to "a creator" at best.  If a believer in a particular god is reduced to word games and logical fallacies simply to get to "god has to exist," he has already marginalized his own theory and does not need any help from an atheist.

Atheists claim there is no evidence and then contort themselves attempting to explain away facts (evidence) in favor of theism. The fact alone the universe and sentient life exists is evidence that favors the theistic theory over we're the result of mindless mechanistic forces theory. I know the 'no evidence' claim of atheists is a hallowed and sacred doctrine. That doesn't make it true. What would you point to as evidence we are the result of natural forces that didn't intend sentient humans to exist? You might argue the laws of physics account for the existence of the universe, stars and planets and ultimately humans. Fine, that can be used as evidence that favors your conclusion. I can use the same fact and argue its evidence that favors my conclusion. The fact there are laws of nature that allow a universe to develop and support human life is evidence they were purposely created and designed to do so. Why would mechanistic forces care if humans, planets or stars exist...they wouldn't.

Suppose we come into a room and we see a window is open. I claim the window was opened by someone, you claim the wind blew it open. At this point either conclusion is reasonable based on the available evidence. But suppose you also enter in the fact that tree limbs are broken outside the window, leaves and debris is all over the yard. Now your building a persuasive (albeit) circumstantial case that supports your contention. On the other hand if we don't see those things but observe fingerprints on the window then I would be making a persuasive case. However it would be nothing more than a debating tactic to argue there is no evidence a personal agent opened the window. You can say the evidence in favor of theism doesn't persuade you but since you're an atheist we already know that. Evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because it doesn't persuade you.

The "looks designed" and "fine tuned" arguments are quite poor in determining the possible existence of a creative force.

Again its a foregone conclusion anyone who calls themselves and atheist is going to say that. But that's exactly what one would look for if they suspect something was done intentionally. Its exactly what SETI is searching for in the universe to determine if intelligent beings are sending us a signal. They're looking for design structure in the broadcast as opposed to random signals and static.

---

Drew, I think it's best that you remain a theist. You obviously don't have either the knowledge to understand what is right in front of you or the desire to learn. You haven't even been able to figure out what atheism really is despite having it explained to you in detail. Please, go and enjoy your life as a sheep. You're well suited to that life.

[Tobie]

Atheists claim there is no evidence and then contort themselves attempting to explain away facts (evidence) in favor of theism. The fact alone the universe and sentient life exists is evidence that favors the theistic theory over we're the result of mindless mechanistic forces theory. I know the 'no evidence' claim of atheists is a hallowed and sacred doctrine. That doesn't make it true. What would you point to as evidence we are the result of natural forces that didn't intend sentient humans to exist? You might argue the laws of physics account for the existence of the universe, stars and planets and ultimately humans. Fine, that can be used as evidence that favors your conclusion. I can use the same fact and argue its evidence that favors my conclusion. The fact there are laws of nature that allow a universe to develop and support human life is evidence they were purposely created and designed to do so. Why would mechanistic forces care if humans, planets or stars exist...they wouldn't.


Suppose we come into a room and we see a window is open. I claim the window was opened by someone, you claim the wind blew it open. At this point either conclusion is reasonable based on the available evidence. But suppose you also enter in the fact that tree limbs are broken outside the window, leaves and debris is all over the yard. Now your building a persuasive (albeit) circumstantial case that supports your contention. On the other hand if we don't see those things but observe fingerprints on the window then I would be making a persuasive case. However it would be nothing more than a debating tactic to argue there is no evidence a personal agent opened the window. You can say the evidence in favor of theism doesn't persuade you but since you're an atheist we already know that. Evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because it doesn't persuade you.

The fact that life exists is not evidence for a god of any kind. In the physical world, it is common to find pockets of order within a sea of disorder. Life is something that requires a very specific and fortunate set of circumstances to occur, but in a system the size and age of the Universe, it isn't hard to see how a complicated system can occur due to the results of "random" processes. We only think we are special in some way because we have the ability to think. 

Life existing doesn't mean the purpose of the universe was to create life. If something designed the universe this way, they did an awful job, since the likelihood of life occurring at a given place is minuscule. 

Your window analogy is poor at best. Apply Occam's razor; the simplest solution is most likely the correct one. For the window, it is much more likely that someone opened it than a freak gust of wind with sufficient energy came along and blew it open. If the latter was the case, you'd probably notice stuff like fallen over buildings, or mislaid farm animals. In the case of life, the simpler solution is that it is the result of an entirely possible (though unlikely) set of events, rather than it being the work of a extra-dimensional super-powerful being that defies all logic and science. 

[robvalue]

Also, any made-up supernatural explanation is as good as any other. No one can demonstrate any of them to be the case. All they can do is brag about how cool their story is. It's the best story!

Don't care. It's still a story. And it doesn't help explain anything, or further our understanding.

My arse did it. My arse is magic and made everything. My claim is just as valid as yours, and just as useless. Both require simply believing supernatural crap people tell you with no way to show it's anything to do with reality. If you're prepared to do that, you've gone past the point of logically and honestly analyzing anything. Saying your story is "better" is like comparing comic book heroes.