"What evidence do you find to be the strongest in favor of atheism? Note, NOT what evidence you find strongest against Christianity. I want to find out why you think you have the strongest position not why you think ours is weak."
"Well, I'll keep Occam's razor out of it, because I'm sure you won't accept that. However, as is, I see that currently, in the last few centuries the human understanding of the universe has expanded so greatly that I find it implausible that a deity exists. It doesn't matter what deity. We know to an approximate the age of the earth, and how life evolved on the planet exempting abiogenesis, and that I expect we'll have an answer to in my lifetime.
Our science in general has stremlined, and works very well, and none of it requires the assumption of a god to be true. Even the big bang doesn't require deity.
If nothing as best we can reason requires a deity, the most reasonable conclusion is that there is none. Do I have "proof" of no deity? No, of course not. Its unfalsifiable. The same could be said of the Invisible pink Unicorn, or Russell's teapot."
The Stranger Wrote Again:
"Thanks for the information, I really appreciate your candor (as well as your calm manner). Let's view the evidence then. You say that the universe is aptly described by the laws of science so I'll use some laws to prove to you, scientifically, that the existence of God is necessary given our current understanding of the laws.
Before I do so, I'd like to make sure you understand that I'm not against you but for you. And also, as my Rhetoric professor said, "He convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." I'm not trying to convince you, but to persuade you. This entails more than logic but I'll start with logic and go from there.
1. If the universe is truly essential then it has been in existence since eternity past.
2. If the universe has been in existence since eternity past then it has been expending energy constantly.
3. If the first and second law of thermodynamics are true (For reference: First law; matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Second law: In a closed system energy loses heat) then the universe has been a closed system losing heat for this entire time.
4. If the universe were infinitely full of energy then there would be no void of space, only an infinite amount of energy in every particle.
5. The universe has finite energy within an infinite period of time.Therefore, the universe must either be finite or the universe must be getting energy from an infinite source.
1. If the universe is then contingent on an infinite source then this infinite source must influence the universe in more than as a battery.
2. The universe has within it intelligent creatures.
3. There is no recorded instance of non-intelligence provoking intelligence.Therefore, the infinite source is not merely actively sustaining the universe but is also intelligent itself.I look forward to your response."
Note: If you wish to continue this, please come over to my blog polyatheistic.blogspot.com . While i appreciate having a gracious host not censoring things, my site is unmoderated, so messages require no approval.
First you make a poor assumption that the universe is essential. We know it had a beginning, therefore whether it is "essential" or not is up to debate.
You have also fallaciously concluded that the universe has infinite energy in order to make your second "proof". Most reputable cosmologists believe the universe will have an end at some point in the very distant future. As a paraphrase, although not a cosmologist, Christopher Hitchens put it quite succinctly with "nothing is the next big thing."
You also make the fallacious conclusion that "There is no recorded instance of non-intelligence provoking intelligence." This is patently false. Clearly mutation and natural selection can provoke intelligence within a species and these processes are not proven to be guided by any higher intelligence.
You're making alot of assertions, and what you need is actual evidence. Beyond that, you cannot prove that such a thing would be a deity. Even were it eternal and intelligent, that doesn't make it an individual or individuals. But then, its not possible to prove it isn't an individual, but I will err on the side of Occam here. A natural process is simpler and does not require an explanation that scientists can never possibly know the answer to. That said you will always come back to "who created the creator?" And saying its eternal is a cop out assertion without evidence of what the creator is, let alone how it exists. "
We'll see if it continues.