You have the whole "God the gaps" argument enfused into you and you are not even aware of it. So you are telling me, that looking for evidence of a god, entails finding a pattern that can only be explained by "positing an intelligent, deliberative, and potent designer.". In other words, you are looking for a god of the gaps. As an atheist, you should know how ridiculous it is when theists cannot explain things and conclude "God done it!", and yet that is the same criterion you are using when discussing a god.<quoted text>
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant that there have been no patterns identified yet that can only be explained by positing an intelligent, deliberative, and potent designer except those known to have been made by mortals on earth.
I am an atheist, and I very rarely weigh the odds against the vastness of the universe. Furthermore, I don't know anybody who does.
I also don't believe that everything around me is the product of chance. There are laws of physics that have a little to do with it. For example, drop an apple in a gravitational field, and it's path, time of falling, velocity on impact, momentum and more are all predictable, not random.
Evolution is not a cause. It is a process, like rusting. Evolution has a cause, like rusting, but is not properly called a cause. A cause is a physical force, like gravity or an impact.
"I am an atheist, and I very rarely weigh the odds against the vastness of the universe. Furthermore, I don't know anybody who does." - Well this is a first for me. So tell me, how do you approach abiogenesis? All atheists that I know, argue the odds. They argue that the chances of life arising from non life in any particular place are slim, but considering the vastness of the universe, the billions of stars and solar systems, it is hence theoretically possible that at least at some location, life would arise in this way. That is the common atheist argument.
Atheists don't believe that every single event occurs through chance, but they do believe that life arouse on this particular planet as a result of chance. Even though the laws of physics exist throughout this universe, it is at this particular solar system that the laws resulted in creating a planet suitable for life (as far as we know at this point). And even when the chances of life arising from a particular pool are slim, there were many pools, hence increasing the odds in life's favour. Is that not the general atheist argument? Is that not the general atheist belief?
Renowned atheist, Carl Sagan believed that somehow out of the various lifeless complex molecules, at least one molecule would've begun the process of replication, and thereafter evolved from then on. Is that not basically what you believe? You may state abiogenesis as the cause and technically that would be correct, but its evolution right from then on.