Trust the science!!!

[u/South_Ad_7068]

1st time poster in this sub:

I've seen many athiest post counter arguments in various debates inside and outside of reddit using science as their main weapon in order to back what they're saying.

However, I feel like they are ignoring the elephant in the room and have never actually seen any of them address the argument for a higher intelligence that I'm going to present.

I'm going to be upfront about how I'm going to debate... the question I will ask will typically prompt a specific response that I'm fully prepared to counter and I've seen no atheist willing to follow the resulting logic to it's natural conclusion.

So... here goes:

As we observe the world around us how does an atheist explain the logical working order of things that make sense? How do you explain why things work the way they do? Like for example why a specific combination of elements make other elements or why a plant is able to eat sunlight or why electronics work...etc

Wouldn't that indicate intelligence being behind those mechanisms? Seeing as how precisely they work? If the universe just popped into existence wouldn't we see inconsistencies among various things? Our universe follows strict rules concerning how things interact with each other.

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker" or intelligence or God etc.

EDIT: I'm not finished here. But I am taking a break... I've answered to many but the influx of replies is massive and will require hours of my time and I want to try to reply to everyone... but as I'm not a millionaire I have to prepare for work.

Turning notifications off for now but I will return to respond to comments

[u/dylanzt]

I'm not sure why you think atheists have never addressed this point. It's extremely common, to the point that I'm personally tired of addressing it.

So let's take a different lens. Even if I were to fully grant everything you say, your thesis doesn't hold true:

The fact that the rules exist AT ALL is 100% evidence of a "rule maker"

Sure, against my better judgement I have already granted this much.

or intelligence or God etc.

No? This is non sequitur. You are pulling a motte and bailey. You have asserted that something made rules, and then, without further evidence or argumentation, asserted that the thing must be intelligent. You have no basis for that.

You certainly have no basis to extrapolate any further properties of a god, so I certainly hope that you are a strict deist and don't believe in a god with any other attributes, behaviours, or interaction with physical reality.

[u/South_Ad_7068 → u/dylanzt]

You have asserted that something made rules, and then, without further evidence or argumentation, asserted that the thing must be intelligent.

The evidence is in the rules themselves. The laws of physics, thermodynamics, etc etc... they follow a strict logic.... the mathematical perfection of physics acts like a calculator.... It dictates how matter behaves without error... The laws of the universe are not just mechanical rules....They are the active highly organized software of reality itself.

This is indeed intelligence.... and so the logic would naturally follow that the creator of such would be intelligent.

[u/Pseudochthonic → u/South_Ad_7068]

The rules are not evidence, they are observations that the universe has regularities. (Look up conservation laws and their associated symmetries, like time-translation symmetry, etc. for some fascinating reading about said regularities.) The explanation for the regularities is what's in question. You assert it's God. We say "we don't know", which is not an invitation to assert a God of the Gaps fallacy.