Is atheism justifiable? (a viable possibility, worthwhile, true)

Wonderful. Why do you presuppose that there is no God? I would expect since you defend the position of atheism and not agnosticism, then surely you have evidence that affirms the claims that are associated with it, namely, "there is no God". If you have such evidence, then indeed it would be something powerful to consider. Otherwise, I'm afraid that we will be forced to conclude that your beliefs are not based on evidence, but merely blind faith. We live in the 21st century. We can KNOW that there are things that exist which our 5 senses cannot detect. Examples: certain light spectrums and sound frequencies, sound waves, spores, bacteria, viruses, gases, air, etc. If science took your approach it would fall behind. You could use that strategy to argue that when I push the button on a device that emits 40 kHz sound it doesn't make a sound at all. However, we could disprove that with a dog or a computer. The point is, you claim, "the origins of the universe do not allow for creation or a creator", which puts you in a VERY tight position. You must now account for everything we see around us, all of the evidence for a Creator. There are after all only 2 competing views, either there is a God who created everything, or, nothing became something, exploded in a very precise (huge understatement) way, formed all the necessary compounds, and became life somehow, (all in a random, uncaused fashion). I am adamantly against the latter view. Here are some of the reasons why: In order to speak of something and be taken seriously you must have some kind of idea/proof of how something is even possible. Anybody with some sense knows nothing just pops up out of nowhere. In fact, if this were the actual nature of things, it would destroy our reality as we know it. How can you make predictions in a reality where things can just pop into existence from nothing? Or random uncaused explosions happen... Ponder this a moment... How amazed would you be to witness any one thing come into existence? You can choose anything you like. Can you tell me with a straight face that you wouldn't be flabbergasted? You would be shocked! Now imagine the WHOLE UNIVERSE, not just one little thing but in it's entirety... I hear people speak of these things as if it were good science, or somehow viable. I'm still waiting for anything that resembles science and not pure speculation at this point. To say you believe something could happen means little when science says it is not possible. Why should we trade in ACTUAL science such as established laws, math, and logic for this nontheistic belief system/religion of sorts? It seems more feasible that everything has a cause. Here are a few reasons (scientific laws) why we should reject atheism and the theories that accompany it: 1. The law of conservation of matter "Matter can be neither created nor be destroyed" 2. The law of conservation of energy "Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed" 3. Second law of thermodynamics (things wear down, they don't improve on their own) 4. The law of angular momentum "the angular momentum of a system remains constant unless acted on by an external torque" (If the big bang happened, we would expect to see everything spinning in the same direction. It doesn't.) As if it weren't enough to defy all 4 of these basic, important, solid LAWS... it gets better. Did you know that the odds of everything happening just right like we enjoy presently (life permitting even) are 1 in 10 to the 60th? Which is this insane number: (1 in 1 Novemdecillion) 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000 Guess what though? That only takes into account gravity! There are obviously many more variables to take into account, such as (if big bang) expansion rate (1 in 10 to the 120th!), or the real whopper, mass and energy evenly distributed to a precision of 1 in 10 billion to the 123rd, an incomprehensible number! By the way, this is way more than the total number of atoms (10 to the 79th) believed to exist in the whole universe even! So if it was a lottery... even if you had 1 ticket for every single atom that exists in the entire universe, it would still be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to win! It's safe to say that math DOES NOT agree with atheism and the wild theories associated with it. Is it not reasonable to say that already at this point? OK, so far atheism and the big bang have not fared well with established scientific laws or mathematics. What about logic? The 3 laws of logic are as follows: 1. The law of identity: P is P. 2. The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P. 3. The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P. OK. Now we shall plug in "state of nothingness" in the place of P. 1. A state of nothingness is a state of nothingness. 2. A state of nothingness is not a non-state of nothingness. 3. Either it is a state of nothingness or is not. Are you starting to see how making these assumptions and speculations is to throw out all knowledge as we know it? If it were presented to you in a nutshell, you would rightfully discard it as foolishness. Nothing exploded, and here we are... This is something presented as the truth and the best option to the kids in public schools. It is implied that smart people believe this, therefore, it must be pretty good. Some teachers just outright teach it as if it were some kind of established fact, which confuses and misleads the kid at an early age. YOU can refute evolution. Using a clean test tube and water, insert 1 living single-cell organism. Now take a sterile needle and poke it open. You may now shake it, heat it up, shock it, do anything but add external existing life. You have all the necessary components for life, yet you cannot put Humpty back together. Keep in mind that this is granting the atheist WAY MORE than a sane person should, but it doesn't even matter because it STILL DOESN'T WORK! Darwin also refutes himself by stating, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. --Charles Darwin, Origin of Species The eye in and of itself refutes him according to his standards. The eye is irreducibly complex. You cannot have a functioning eye without all the necessary components. Actually, every single cell is irreducibly complex! You need all of the parts correctly placed to function properly and thrive. Notice how evolution has to give you a really low number of probability to excuse the lack of demonstrable data, yet we are to believe that this VERY rare instance just so happened to occur in a way that they were at the right place at the right time with a suitable mate? Scientists have attempted many tests with creatures and micro-organisms because of their high reproductive rate. Whether they use fruit flies, viruses, or bacteria, the results are always the same. You will find that information is only rearranged or lost, never gained or added to. So you may get variations but, unfortunately for the theory of evolution, it tends to be a negative attribute as a loss of information, like a fly with less wings or legs. Also, everything remains within a limiting range, as per the DNA code to select from. You will never breed a fly the size of a house for example. DNA also is a great way to know how irreducibly complex everything alive is. Unlike the simplistic notion of some primordial goop with little complexity which we now know doesn't exist, as every single thing alive is more complex than a space ship. Or how about the fact that time is always added in as a "magic ingredient". The notion that something impossible will become possible if only you give it enough time, is absurd! For most people this is enough evidence, however, there will always be those who reject the truth for an impossible scenario because of the implications of said truth.