That would be an argument from ignorance, an unreasonable logical fallacy.
Have you heard of begging the question, yet another unreasonable logical fallacy? Your conclusion is in your premise. You need to present evidence that they were purposefully arranged.
Irony noted.
More irony spotted. Mote and beam, Bill!
ETA Ninja’d
You are making the claim that God does not exist so it is up to you to supply the evidence for his non-existence. I am a skeptic of your belief system, so as a skeptic, I am disinclined to believe your claim which is backed by no evidence.
No, I am not. I don’t know if God exists or not.
That’s a shift in the burden of proof, a logical fallacy.
Hmm. From an atheist no less. This is exactly the kind of admission that logic requires you to make. So where do you want to go with your new-found ‘faith’?
I would suggest talking to more atheists. You might learn what they really think instead of the caricatures found within Christian circles.
What faith?
I find plenty of reasons for awe, but not support at all for the miraculous.
I don’t think you can find any atheist who claims to know God doesn’t exist. This is not news.
No, it isn’t.
That the universe exists is powerful evidence that the universe exists. But it is neutral on the question of the existence of God.
This is not accurate. Atheism is a belief system, not a “lack of belief” system. Your belief system informs you that God does not exist. So actually the above definition is self-refuting and illogical at its very foundation.
If you claim otherwise, perhaps you would like to tell me what this means: “Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.”
So you have an answer as to how the universe began? If a belief system has an answer doesn’t that make it a more plausible hypothesis?
Of course he doesn’t. At this moment in time, no-one does. There are theories well-supported by evidence but none give a complete answer.
As interesting to me is where the connection between a proposed creator of the universe and the Christian God. How do you make the leap?
Didn’t we just go over this?
I don’t know if God exists. I don’t believe God exists, but I could be wrong. I am an atheist.
It means you lack a belief that gods exist. Should be self-explanatory.
A good analogy is a trial. If you are juror and know nothing about the crime or evidence you would (or at least should) lack a belief that the defendant is guilty. Only after evidence has been presented do you consider changing your mind. The burden of proof lies with the prosecutor, and if the prosecutor isn’t able to meet that burden then the defendant is found not guilty.
No, I have no answer to that. It may be unknowable.
And so…
Only if it has a correct answer. Having an answer which is wrong or with unknown status does not increase plausibility.
Tis so. As I keep saying, it is the null hypothesis. If you had lived in a culture that did not impart any information about the Christian God, six day creations and 6,000 year old Earth, you would be ignorant of it all.
Apparently, what is self-explanatory to an atheist is confusion to rest of us. Now your burden of proof increases. Now you must prove out your confusing position that God may or may not exist. Weird, in a sense in doing so, you will actually have to temporarily assume a theistic position! You are definitely a confused lot of people. No doubt about that.
I don’t think the burden is on atheists to prove anything about the existence of gods. When gods impinge on my existence I may need to give them further consideration. And you are very welcome to do otherwise. As I keep saying, live and let live.
You know what? On second thought, never mind. Your position is so illogical that it does not even deserve the mention that a detractor would give it. And certainly it does not deserve the time it would take to untangle the absolute mess of your belief system.
[Get a real belief system, and then we can talk]