Why do atheists claim that the concept of God is so unlikely

[Yadayadayada]

Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we  all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You believe in magic?

[FatAndFaithless]

Hard thing is telling the Poes from the real theists.

[Aoi Magi]

I am glad you know what atheists think better than atheists themselves, please, do continue...

---

Hard thing is telling the Poes from the real theists.

There are non-poe preachers?

[chimp3]

Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we  all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

Read a science book once in awhile.

[brewer]

OP, you can have what ever fantasy concept of god that you like. I choose not to live in a fantasy delusion. 

And we're back to "It's not explained to my satisfaction or comfort level, therefore god. Fantasy can explain it all.".

[CanOfMountainDew]

You not knowing how evolution works is not evidence for a god. That's called a 'god of the gaps fallacy', or an 'argument from ignorance fallacy.' You're arguing that because you're ignorant of how some thing is caused, any explanation you throw at it (i.e. god) is just as likely as any other. This is, of course, not true; therefore the fallacy.

"Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different"

^That's not evolution.

Evolution works because of natural selection, and natural selection works like this:

1. There is variation in traits.
For example, some beetles are green and some are brown.

2. There is differential reproduction.
Since the environment can't support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.

3. There is heredity.
The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles because this trait has a genetic basis.

4. End result:
The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

[robvalue]

Even if evolution can't explain anything, this does not leave "God" as the only other possibility. (The theory of evolution is not supposed to explain where life came from. That is abiogenesis.)

I generally find the concept of God incoherent. Everyone comes up with something different and even if it makes sense, it's almost never testable. If it isn't testable, there can't be any evidence.

I also find it irrelevant.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And even if you go with Pascal's Wager you have to consider Cthulhu's Corollary: What I pick the wrong god?

[Chad32]

Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.

Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.

But, this is not what the facts show at all.

The theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.

How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.

As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?

What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.

For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.

The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we  all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.

It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".

Evolution does not attempt to explain life's origins. I'm not sure why theists want to conflate evolution with abiogenesis. Stating a god did it, or magic, is a non answer. Anyone can say that whatever their god is, did it, and their opinion would be just as valid as any other explanation that can't be tested in a lab.

We actually have a good idea on how eyes came to be, if you want to look it up. I've never heard of reptiles to mammals. Only reptiles to birds. Scales into feathers, for instance.

There's overwhelming evidence that the bible is wrong about a lot of things. Some things it gets right, but a lot it gets wrong.

Unless you have concrete evidence for a specific deity, and not just "I don't know the answer, so I'll stick a god in there", then we can safely assume gods don't exist. Inserting one into gaps in our knowledge doesn't help us further our species.