Atheism is a lot of nonsense. Duns Scotus's argument has already solved this problem, as has Leibniz's version offering the key premise of the ontological argument (God may exist). Not only that, St. Augustine used a Platonic conception in the argument of eternal truths, which will later be defended by Leibniz.
I could also cite here numerous other routes, such as the fact that mathematics demonstrates possibilities about the physical universe (without this there is no science) and it is possible to build cosmological models in which the universe comes into existence (even if there are competing models saying otherwise, it is enough that the universe may not be necessary for it to be contingent).
There is the route of simple being, in which analyzing that a compound being = its parts + unification of its parts. If the parts are unification itself, then it plays into absurdity, for what would unify the parts + unification of the parts? Nor can it be the compound itself that unifies itself, for in that case it is the cause of itself. Then an external unifier is needed, thus starting a hierarchical series (not linear time, but what keeps compound beings in existence). In the end a simple being is necessary, and therefore not physical (since being simple is not composed of potentiality and actuality, only actuality being thus out of time and space).
There are several ways to derive their properties, intelligence can be derived using several distinct arguments about the reality of universals, abstract objects, and so on.
The problem is that this discussion is purely emotional in 99% of cases. It is more anger against a world of suffering than against the idea of God. Anger that God didn't reach out when needed, when he didn't save a loved one, when he didn't defend him from being humiliated, and so on.
I could also cite here numerous other routes, such as the fact that mathematics demonstrates possibilities about the physical universe (without this there is no science) and it is possible to build cosmological models in which the universe comes into existence (even if there are competing models saying otherwise, it is enough that the universe may not be necessary for it to be contingent).
There is the route of simple being, in which analyzing that a compound being = its parts + unification of its parts. If the parts are unification itself, then it plays into absurdity, for what would unify the parts + unification of the parts? Nor can it be the compound itself that unifies itself, for in that case it is the cause of itself. Then an external unifier is needed, thus starting a hierarchical series (not linear time, but what keeps compound beings in existence). In the end a simple being is necessary, and therefore not physical (since being simple is not composed of potentiality and actuality, only actuality being thus out of time and space).
There are several ways to derive their properties, intelligence can be derived using several distinct arguments about the reality of universals, abstract objects, and so on.
The problem is that this discussion is purely emotional in 99% of cases. It is more anger against a world of suffering than against the idea of God. Anger that God didn't reach out when needed, when he didn't save a loved one, when he didn't defend him from being humiliated, and so on.
