Second Wave of Modern Atheism

"The universe is improbable, so you should allow other improbable things to exist." The improbable existence of miracles is at best theoretical, the vast majority of the time they are explained by human flawed thinking, whereas the universe can be demonstrated, opposed only by mere lack of realistic chance rather than an actual prohibition to be divinely surmounted. Improbability, no matter how improbable, isn't impossible. There is no need to add in divinity when discussing the existence of the universe as improbable. Conversely, we don't have to give credence to improbable miracles because, as stated earlier, they are too rare to be routinely demonstrated, with there being far more cases of human error. And this is assuming we even need to describe them as magic or divine instead of quantum weirdness. https://www.reddit.com/r/RationalRight/comments/1cavkwr/appeal_to_probability_is_only_a_problem_when/

 https://shenviapologetics.com/science-and-religion-part-iv/ In general, attempts to "combine religion and science" are basically just looking at alleged holes in science, and then asserting that, instead of using philosophy, we just regurgitate religion and shoehorn it. Shenvi might try to make a point here on in his other articles, but I doubt he succeeds. First, let’s consider the mathematical structure of the universe itself. Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner wrote a very famous paper entitled “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” [Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13, No. I (1960)] in which he observes that the remarkable success of mathematics in describing the physical world is actually very surprising. Mathematics He repeatedly uses the words miracle and miraculous to describe this phenomenon. After all, it is not metaphysically necessary that the universe is the way it is. We could conceive of a universe that was wholly...

 The Great God Paradox is when creationists try to argue for the existence of a deity that's omnipotent, but when faced with skepticism, can only defend the position by making appeals to ignorance, looking for vague things to defend the notion, or otherwise using tenuous points to defend the existence of a strong deity. Essentially, a great God is displayed solely by weakness. Examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN00T-KS88I General "science was wrong before, you don't know everything" type of stuff. https://youtu.be/vOJTxk5sD80?si=89l-68hP-xt6xNnX&t=2214 Basically tries to say an omnipotent god can only be logical because the rules of science also so. Instead of going the standard route of omnipotence, tries to say that a god works through quantum mechanics. Bit of a cop out, definitely trying to shoehorn a deity into something existing without one. https://evangelism.intervarsity.org/resource/there-no-hard-evidence-god-exists#:~:text=Just%20because%20you,Go...

 I have long maintained that the Argument from First Cause is satisfied by something more analogous to a force like gravity and electromagnetism. In my ignorance, I thought these forces were solid entities rather than interactions, the warping and curvature of space-time (Gravity), or the result of electromagnetic fields (electromagnetism).  However, when you are given to false ideas (my view of the first cause being a force, and the theistic view of it being a force with divinity [which it would have to distinctly be unless they want to broaden the definition of God to "anything considered weird through an anthropocentric lens"], let alone a vaguely human one), it would be best to not choose one of the two but discard both. And I shall. My new explanation is an x-substance that can be called Formation. Credit to the theists, this is also speculative, however, it is not convoluted, and as such doesn't stretch the need for an answer into a free reign "anything goes...

 https://www.solas-cpc.org/what-to-say-when-someone-asks-for-proof-of-gods-existence/ “There isn’t enough evidence.” It seems so reasonable. It’s what any sensible person would ask. Where is the evidence? Why should it be so difficult to believe in Christ? Probably because you hitched your wagon on a dead Jew that other Jews disown. Now to set snark aside Hard core atheism, the belief that there is no God (anti-theism), is difficult to defend 1. Anti-theism isn't the mere lack of belief in a deity, it's the active hatred of the idea of a deity. They aren't the same, being conflated because it's the natural conclusion to oppose a deity in a world where the vast majority of those who support the God Hypothesis aren't sensible or reserved like deists, but religious people who want to use this deity as a way of asserting their moral beliefs on other people, at best guilt tripping family members with paranoia about hell. 2. The atheist position is rather easy to defend. ...

  Arguments for a deity (argument from morality, design, ontology, first cause, etc.) make the same leap in logic that creationist commonly lambast their strawman of evolution of having, the missing link. As creationists claim that there should be a link between apes and man in evolution, there is a solid link missing between the need for an explanation the arguments impose (the ontolological argument slightly different, where the reasoning as to why a deity is superior instead of raw potential or a cosmic stem cell encompassing all that's existing such as a deity) to the existence of not only a deity  when only a force that does the thing is required (like how gravity and electromagnetism exist)  but their specific theology, including not only a deity but also legions of angels and demons fighting a war over mankind and a code of ethics that just happen to exist now because of the supreme deity's ultimate wisdom. It's analogous to calling an exterminator on a housefly. S...

 It's for all intents and purposes the opposite of how logic works, I'm supposed to give some credence to an idea with no reason to believe it because it's in the vaguest notion possible. I could bring up Hitchens' Razor and the response would be people trying to say that foundationalism (specific to theism) counters it when foundationalism is debatable and foundationalism based on a nebulous deity is worse than foundationalism predicated upon what stimulates our sense into perceiving specific things.