A defense of Strong Atheism

[juliod]

I promised Harv a defense and apology of Strong Atheism. Here it is. Keep in mind that this is only supposed to be an outline. Each point could be the subject of several full threads. And I'll be happy to go into each one in irritating detail, but I don't want anyone jumping in with "you haven't proved anything!"

Also, the standard I am arguing for is the "reasonable observer". I do not aspire to the fiction of absolute proof. I only mean that a reasonable person would conclude that this point of view is the correct one, and that it is unreasonable to believe otherwise.

A strong atheist is a person who makes a positive claim that there is no god. In other words, that to believe in god is an unreasonable action.

In order to be a strong atheist it is necessary to conclude that there is firm evidence against the existence of all concepts of god. This is not as hard as it may appear. In reality we need only rule out a few general categories, and the specific gods of the mainstream views of the major religions.

So here are the arguments, in no particular order.

1) Major religions.

This is the easiest one, since there are well-known refutations of all the major religions. For example, the free-will/omniscience paradox which rules out any god that is claimed to have those properties. Combine these arguments with the fact that neither YHWH, nor Allah, nor any Hindu deity has ever been spotted and we have a pretty convincing case. Followers of the major religions make all sorts of claims that would be obvious if they were true. God is said to be all-powerful, but can't do anything. Prayer is said to work wonders but can't be seen to work by any means. Most importantly, god is said to have specific wills and specific purposes, but these can never be seen to operate in the real world.

Instead, the world religions change and mutate as the societies that invented them change. That's the point. Societies invent religions for specific psychological, political, or social purposes. The religions can be seen to operate in that way, and can be seen to change as the social needs change. This distinguishes the religions as they actually exist from the religions as they are described by their own doctrine. The existence of the deity is unnecessary for these functions, and in the absence of evidence it is unreasonable to believe that any of them exist.

2) Minor religions.

Minor religions that are held by only a tiny, usually marginalized, group are a special problem. It's impossible to examine all of their claims. But it's not necessary. We can take it that any being, even if it were to exist, that interests itself in only a tiny group rather than the plurality of mankind, is not qualified as a god. It's impossible for a god, in the meaning we in the west use, to be limited to such an extent.

OTOH, I am not rigid in this. If someone wants to debate the existence of any of these special beings, I am willing to look at it, providing they can tell me enough about it to allow me in principle to decide if the being exists, and if that being is a god.

Keep in mind, in this context, that most "gods" through history have been little statues worshipped by only a few hundred people at most.

3) New Age, modern mysticism, etc.

New religions can usually be ruled out simply because they are new. It's not reasonable to think that the all-powerful, all-seeing, all-wise creator of the universe, etc, with a plan, etc, has only just be discovered, and then only in Southern California. Or rather, if that is so there had better be a very very good explanation for it. But these modern faddy, trendy religions never come with good explanations, and usually disappear as soon as their leaders discover a new scam.

Again, if anyone wants to debate one of these in detail it is necessary to provide sufficient information about the actual claims in order to decide if the claims are true and if there is a god involved.

4) Newly discovered beings.

This is a general argument against any claims about a specific god-being that is not in identity with any of the traditional gods. Imagine an alien being coming to earth. Imagine also that this being has abilities usually attributed to the supernatural on earth. For example, lets say the alien can actually do telepathy. Now, if that being is actually present, and we can actually see a demonstration of the power, that being won't be a god, but just an alien (with powers). It is assured that many people would immediately begin worshipping that being as if it were a god, but a reasonable person should see that as fallacious.

In order to qualify a new being as a god there will need to be a very good explanation. And that assumes that the being is actually here to be observed in the first place. Which none are.

5) Undefined things.

People sometimes demand that we strong atheists prove that something undefined doesn't exist. The claim is "X exists". Where X is not defined. It has no properties. It's not animal, vegetable, mineral, energy, or any other thing real or imagined. It's not large nor small. It has no color and is neither visible nor invisible.

In this case, the claim "X exists" is a nonsense. It's not false. It's logically or rhetorically invalid. No response is necessary.

6) Hypothetical what-ifs.

There is no need to consider gods that are invented as philosophical exercises. At the very least, any being with a claim to be a god must have a sincere core group of followers. If a god-concept is not the focus of an actual religion I won't waste time considering it.

OTOH, if you have a pet god that you insist I discuss, you will need, as in the other cases, to provide sufficient information about it for us to decide if it exists or not, and if it is a god or not.

Conclusion

That pretty much sums it up. Tons and tons of writing could be done on each of these. I don't expect that this outline will convince any theist to become a strong atheist. But the question is, do you have good reason to believe any of these gods exist. If you don't it is a sign that you are not a Reasonable Observer.

DanZ

[juliod]

"Not completely hidden" and "perceivable" are not the same thing. The idea of a God that is "not completely hidden" is one which encourages the user to look for the handiwork of God, even while not actually seeing God.

I'm not clear on what you are saying here. I was using the terms as synonyms. You mentioned the unpercievable. My point is that religions to do not claim their god is unpercievable, so basing agnosticism on that is not valid.

Yes, this does make a case for god or multiple gods. Just the fact we can conceive of higher beings than us makes it possible.

Just hold on there....

1) No, the fact that there are other beings "out there" that we don't know about does not make a case for god. To claim that some alien being we may encounter in the future is god would need an extremely good explanation. All the religions posit a god that is interested in earth, interested in mankind (and usually, interested in the individual believer). That does not apply to some remote alien, even if that alien were extraordinarily powerful.

2) The fact that we can concieve of various things does not make it possible, and in particular does not make it reasonable to believe in those things. Otherwise, entering the fiction section of a bookstore or library would be a dangerous thing to do. There may be aliens on Pluto. But to state "There are aliens on Pluto" is a lie, a falshood, or at least an unreasonable thing to assert. I also note that it would be impossible to live your life this way. I can conceive that overnight the meaning of "red light" and "green light" may have switched. Does that mean it is possible? Sicne that would be a critical fact, if true, I would need to worry about it. Is it reasonable to have such a worry? No.

You only have yourself to blame because of something in your character that doesn't allow God to answer your prayers; or else "God has other plans for you" & you need to reassess what it is you wish to ask him.

re: faith and the hidden god.

But then you'd need to explain why god never answers prayers, even for the faithful. This is not something we can pretend not to know: prayer doesn't work.

In the case of absolute denial, you are required to examine and deny every piece of evidence available because your denial is based on your assumption that such evidence is faulty.

Yes, except that in many cases we can lump claims into classes that can be denied at a swoop. And as far as evidence is concerned it is the exceeding paucity of evidence that allows strong atheism to live. There's really no evidence to look at.

Also, we are talking about "god", not just "something we don't understand". And the word "god" has a meaning that we all largely understand (and I am using the term in the ordinary western sense).

This means you are philosophically susceptible to claims like harvey1 makes about potentially unknowable physical phenomenae and whatever semantic laws of the universe he's talking about. You must have an answer to counter his claims in order to be a strong atheist.

Only if he makes claims that might be god. I don't think he's moving in that direction. It is not required of strong atheism to deny all forms of mysticism or supernaturalism. Only those that have a god.

The second you say something like: "This particular unknown phenomenon doesn't require that we invoke a God in order to explain it" you have ceased becoming a strong atheist and have entered the realm of agnosticism.

I'm not sure why you say that. If a claimant attributes some unknown phenomenon to not god but the alien Quixsnax, and there is no actual evidence to support the existant of Quixsnax, then it is unreasonable to entertain this as an explanation. It fails to explain.

This is untrue. Any religion can state quite legitimately that any particular claim being false does not affect the religion as a whole.

Minor claims, yes. But not the important claims. How many christian churches could survive an acceptance of the falsity of their all-seeing, all-knowing god?

There are plenty of claims that cannot be falsified because they are mired in the past.

Then let's stay with the present. Strong atheism makes claims about the here and now. It has implications for the past and future. But if all god-claims can only exist in the past (or future) then it makes little difference.

You could have every single claim from now until the end of the Wal-Mart empire be falsified and still not be able to come to any conclusions.

That, in my view, is unreasonable. When evidence should be copious, but is absent (as for religious claims) it is necessary to draw the required conclusion. We can always reconsider the question if new evidence is found. But we have a word for people who won't accept the falsity of a falsified theory: cranks.

Christianity suffers from the same logical positivist trap that Marxism does. It can only be proved true, it can never be proved false.

That's unfair... to Marxism. Marxism is a political view about how we should arrange society. Christianity is (at least in a large part) a collection of claims about the universe. Many of them can be proven false (by the standard of reasonable observer). Even if the apocalypse were to happen tomorrow, we can feel sure that it is not caused by the god of the bible.

DanZ

[harvey1]

You can lead a theist to water, but you can't make him think!

This is much more applies to the atheist. The fine-tuning of the physical constants alone demonstrates that atheism is afflicted with closed-mindedness.

[juliod]

What does that have to do with a strong atheist's claim that God cannot possibly exist?

Context, context.

You stated that religions change. I was pointing out that changing religions is a sign of falsity since the believers in those religions do not generally admit to mutability.

For example, monotheism has basically superceded polytheism.

Piffle. Only among the big two. And they are about the same god, which they define in different ways. Hinduism is, what, the third largest religion. And Chinese Traditional Practise, if it is a religion, is polytheistic.

The name YHWH represents the nature of symmetry, and I think it's only in the last century that humans have come to appreciate how fundamental the nature of symmetry is.

In the bible, YHWH does not "represent the nature of symmetry". He's a being that got really angry at Adam and Eve for disobedience. He talked to people, did specific acts, and had human-like emotions, and a physical form on more than one occasion.

However, I disagree that the laws of physics are just conventions to explain various facts of the universe. As I've mentioned to QED, the new proposals in quantum gravity are all based on prescriptive laws.

Who is making the new proposals in quantum gravity? My bet is that it is a human. All our physical laws (100% of them) are inventions of humans.

If you are looking for something to read, I recommend How the Laws of Physics Lie by Nancy Cartwright. It's bogus, in my view, but should clear up for you the notion that the physical laws are somehow mystically important.

In any case, please provide your arguments for the non-existence of God (versus the non-existence of the God of religion).

"God" and "god of religion" are the same. If you have a god that is not represented by a religion, you'll have to explain it to me more clearly. I think I am likely to claim that your god is no god at all, but your own particular view of physics.

DanZ

[QED]

You can lead a theist to water, but you can't make him think!

This is much more applies to the atheist. The fine-tuning of the physical constants alone demonstrates that atheism is afflicted with closed-mindedness.

Come on Harvey, you're acting as if there was no adequate alternative explanation. Other readers unfamiliar with the anthropic principle could easily be mislead into thinking that there must have been a fine-tuner when you make this sort of assertion. I think this is particularly disingenuous considering the well-established conclusions of inflation theory.

[harvey1]

Come on Harvey, you're acting as if there was no adequate alternative explanation. Other readers unfamiliar with the anthropic principle could easily be mislead into thinking that there must have been a fine-tuner when you make this sort of assertion. I think this is particularly disingenuous considering the well-established conclusions of inflation theory.

QED, if I disbelieved in extraterrestrial civilizations, and friends of mine went so far as saying that ET could not exist in principle, then this belief I suppose could be held right now given our lack of evidence. However, if suddenly astronomers found structures in space which seemed extremely unlikely to be caused by naturally occurring phenomena (i.e., the expectation value of there being natural structures like this given the size of our universe is very, very small), but the anthropic principle could explain them if we consider an infinite number of universes with no such naturally occuring structures; then is my insistence that ET does not exist consistent with the evidence? No, it is not. There would be enough evidence established that ET might exist, and therefore the only reasonable position I could take is to either believe in ET, or hold out hope that those structures are caused by some use of the anthropic principle. Of course, the anthropic principle is a matter of desperation on those who don't want to believe in ET, and shouldn't be given too much credence until it is shown that those structures in space are unlikely to be caused by ET. ET becomes the number 1 reason why those very unique structures were found given their uniqueness and expectation of them being there.

With regards to inflation, we might have to pull back some from this model. Recent evidence indicates that inflation is in trouble. In addition, even inflation does not remove some of the coincidences in the physical constants.

[MagusYanam]

And Chinese Traditional Practise, if it is a religion, is polytheistic.

It's not really a religion per se, and it's not really polytheistic either. Chinese traditional practise does not deal primarily with the supernatural - traditional social philosophy deals with relationships between people and traditional medicine deals with the well-being of the individual person. Confucius said that one mustn't concern oneself serving ghosts and spirits before they've learned to serve humanity.

If you are referring to the veneration of ancestors and sages, there you might have more basis for the 'polytheistic' argument. But ancestors and sages aren't really considered 'gods' and their veneration in the former case is really just a family matter, in the latter a form of public piety.

[harvey1]

You stated that religions change. I was pointing out that changing religions is a sign of falsity since the believers in those religions do not generally admit to mutability.

This has nothing to do with there being a God. For example, a pantheistic God might have absolutely no in insects believing in it's existence, and we're just not there yet on an evolutionary scale. It's conceivable God might only have interest in intelligence once it reaches the point of being omnscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, etc.. I say this not because I doubt that religion is relevant, but because it has really nothing to do with whether God exists.

Piffle. Only among the big two. And they are about the same god, which they define in different ways. Hinduism is, what, the third largest religion. And Chinese Traditional Practise, if it is a religion, is polytheistic.

By far most people on earth profess one God or one ultimate unifying principle for the universe (e.g., the Buddha, the Tao).

the bible, YHWH does not "represent the nature of symmetry". He's a being that got really angry at Adam and Eve for disobedience. He talked to people, did specific acts, and had human-like emotions, and a physical form on more than one occasion.

I'm talking about the name itself. YHWH is believed to have an invariant meaning with regards to the "be" word (being, becoming, having become).

Who is making the new proposals in quantum gravity? My bet is that it is a human. All our physical laws (100% of them) are inventions of humans.

Prove it, juliod. It sound like you ought to research quantum gravity...

If you are looking for something to read, I recommend How the Laws of Physics Lie by Nancy Cartwright. It's bogus, in my view, but should clear up for you the notion that the physical laws are somehow mystically important.

We talked about Cartwright's book already, and I don't see her objections as that overwhelming. Her main objection against laws, and the objections of most antirealists in general, is that explanation alone does not justify the truth of a law. However, it doesn't not justify it either. What you don't see from antirealists is an explanation on how the so-called invented laws happen to so neatly describe the phenomena that they were supposedly invented to explain. If humans do it, then why are the expressions such as F=ma or E=mc^2 reduced to some long-winded equation that absolutely no one could easily memorize? Also, why is it that physics appears to often be a special case of mathematics in general? In addition to those reasons, why can we reproduce the former equations (e.g., F=ma) using only the new scientific equations (e.g., path integrals) if we consider only the classical conditions in which the former equations were said to be valid? This suggests that the classical equations are approximations, but not inventions.

I have rarely seen valid responses from anti-realists on each of these points. Perhaps it's the anthropic principle at play, huh?

[QED]

QED, if I disbelieved in extraterrestrial civilizations, and friends of mine went so far as saying that ET could not exist in principle, then this belief I suppose could be held right now given our lack of evidence. However, if suddenly astronomers found structures in space which seemed extremely unlikely to be caused by naturally occurring phenomena (i.e., the expectation value of there being natural structures like this given the size of our universe is very, very small), but the anthropic principle could explain them if we consider an infinite number of universes with no such naturally occuring structures;

I'm going to cut you off right here: you are attempting to draw a parallel between this unnatural structure which exists as an irregularity of the universe and the natural, regular, structure of the universe (which I am talking about) to make you point. That irregularity makes a huge amount of difference because it is not an essential part of being that which supports our existence (unlike the regular laws that we are discussing) therefore it does not lend itself to an anthropic solution.

I think it's unreasonable for anyone to dismiss the potential for an anthropic solution. It's always a viable explanation for the conditions that we find ourselves in given sufficient degrees of freedom: You could argue that the reason the atmosphere has just the right amount of oxygen and that the temperature is just right and that our food tastes nice etc. is all due to the providence of God, or you can simply realize that if the atmosphere was sulphurous and the temperature was above boiling point and the food was unrefined petroleum products, then you'd either be non-existent or an entirely different creature living on a different planet.

With regards to inflation, we might have to pull back some from this model. Recent evidence indicates that inflation is in trouble. In addition, even inflation does not remove some of the coincidences in the physical constants.

Inflationary theory has remained viable for almost a quarter of a century now, but you're right, it's not the only horse in town. Of course most cosmologists use the absence of the amount of fine tuning in a given theory as a measure of its merit. We can therefore assume that such cosmologists are not content with a God-given beginning.

[ST88]

"Not completely hidden" and "perceivable" are not the same thing. The idea of a God that is "not completely hidden" is one which encourages the user to look for the handiwork of God, even while not actually seeing God.

I'm not clear on what you are saying here. I was using the terms as synonyms. You mentioned the unpercievable. My point is that religions to do not claim their god is unpercievable, so basing agnosticism on that is not valid.

Sorry for not being clear. If a god is completely hidden, we would not expect to see anything about him anywhere. However, for the believer, looking through the lens of belief, his handiwork is everywhere. Imperceptible, to me, means the inability to interact with this particular god. Hearing voices that sound like God in the night fall into this category (negatively, if you get my meaning). If they are synonyms, then fogetaboudit.

Yes, this does make a case for god or multiple gods. Just the fact we can conceive of higher beings than us makes it possible.

Just hold on there....

1) No, the fact that there are other beings "out there" that we don't know about does not make a case for god. To claim that some alien being we may encounter in the future is god would need an extremely good explanation. All the religions posit a god that is interested in earth, interested in mankind (and usually, interested in the individual believer). That does not apply to some remote alien, even if that alien were extraordinarily powerful.

Oh, come on now. Obviously, in a real sense the alien is not God, even if some of us might believe it so. The idea of "God" may or may not have a referent, despite what we may think, regardless of the nature of the explanation. Confusing the alien for God is a very real and scary possibility, but shouldn't really be a part of this discussion.

2) The fact that we can concieve of various things does not make it possible, and in particular does not make it reasonable to believe in those things. Otherwise, entering the fiction section of a bookstore or library would be a dangerous thing to do. There may be aliens on Pluto. But to state "There are aliens on Pluto" is a lie, a falshood, or at least an unreasonable thing to assert. I also note that it would be impossible to live your life this way. I can conceive that overnight the meaning of "red light" and "green light" may have switched. Does that mean it is possible? Sicne that would be a critical fact, if true, I would need to worry about it. Is it reasonable to have such a worry? No.

Of course the positive value of belief in God is not reasonable. We're not arguing about that. Just like the positive value of belief in aliens on Pluto is not reasonable. But consider what we know about aliens... I'm waiting... what do we know about them? What form do they have? In what environments can they survive? Which parts of our sensory infrastructure array could perceive signs of them? There is absolutely nothing we know about aliens. We can't even state for certain that they don't walk among us. The whole idea is ridiculous, but it is not possible to philosophically dismiss it.

re: faith and the hidden god.

But then you'd need to explain why god never answers prayers, even for the faithful. This is not something we can pretend not to know: prayer doesn't work.

Hee hee! But, kind sir, prayers are answered. Given the number of prayers made by people all over the world, it only stands to reason that a certain percentage of them will be "answered".

In the case of absolute denial, you are required to examine and deny every piece of evidence available because your denial is based on your assumption that such evidence is faulty.

Yes, except that in many cases we can lump claims into classes that can be denied at a swoop. And as far as evidence is concerned it is the exceeding paucity of evidence that allows strong atheism to live. There's really no evidence to look at.

So lack of evidence is enough for absolute denial?

Also, we are talking about "god", not just "something we don't understand". And the word "god" has a meaning that we all largely understand (and I am using the term in the ordinary western sense).

Well, sure. But we don't know what form the referent takes. The Biblical God is very cagey about his physical form (if any); so when we use the term "God" (capital letters), there may or may not be a referent we would entirely understand even if we were exposed to it.

But that's not even the point. The point is that "evidence" against this God is not scientifically possible given the nature of the referent, whatever that nature might be.

This means you are philosophically susceptible to claims like harvey1 makes about potentially unknowable physical phenomenae and whatever semantic laws of the universe he's talking about. You must have an answer to counter his claims in order to be a strong atheist.

Only if he makes claims that might be god. I don't think he's moving in that direction. It is not required of strong atheism to deny all forms of mysticism or supernaturalism. Only those that have a god.

But you have to keep tabs on him, don't you? And you don't know in which direction he's going at all times. I find it curious that you're willing to accept the idea of the supernatural if evidence could be presented about it. How do you reconcile this idea with the idea that there is definitely not a Judeo-Christian god? After all, there are many stories about this particular god, many versions of his character and his actions. You would have to take all of them into consideration and deny them all.

The second you say something like: "This particular unknown phenomenon doesn't require that we invoke a God in order to explain it" you have ceased becoming a strong atheist and have entered the realm of agnosticism.

I'm not sure why you say that. If a claimant attributes some unknown phenomenon to not god but the alien Quixsnax, and there is no actual evidence to support the existant of Quixsnax, then it is unreasonable to entertain this as an explanation. It fails to explain.

So you are agnostic about Quixsnax? So am I. It is unreasonable to entertain the existence of it. That is, it is unreasonable to consider the question of whether or not it exists.

This is untrue. Any religion can state quite legitimately that any particular claim being false does not affect the religion as a whole.

Minor claims, yes. But not the important claims. How many christian churches could survive an acceptance of the falsity of their all-seeing, all-knowing god?

That wasn't the point, and is a quite unfair treatment of this observation. The point was that people make claims about having "God" experiences throughout history, the vast majority of which have been successfully falsified. And still the religion survives.

There are plenty of claims that cannot be falsified because they are mired in the past.

Then let's stay with the present. Strong atheism makes claims about the here and now. It has implications for the past and future. But if all god-claims can only exist in the past (or future) then it makes little difference.

I don't know how you can make this distinction. The very fact that there are some claims you will never be able to check out makes your position untenable. You do not have the ability to generalize all claims out of existence (though many of them, to be sure, can be), and you do not have the ability to predict future claims.

You could have every single claim from now until the end of the Wal-Mart empire be falsified and still not be able to come to any conclusions.

That, in my view, is unreasonable. When evidence should be copious, but is absent (as for religious claims) it is necessary to draw the required conclusion.

What part of the "God" model suggests that the existence of evidence be copious?

We can always reconsider the question if new evidence is found. But we have a word for people who won't accept the falsity of a falsified theory: cranks.

There is a term for people who are willing to reserve judgment until new evidence is found, and it ain't strong atheism.

Christianity suffers from the same logical positivist trap that Marxism does. It can only be proved true, it can never be proved false.

That's unfair... to Marxism. Marxism is a political view about how we should arrange society. Christianity is (at least in a large part) a collection of claims about the universe. Many of them can be proven false (by the standard of reasonable observer). Even if the apocalypse were to happen tomorrow, we can feel sure that it is not caused by the god of the bible.

... in your esteemed opinion. But really now, there are some Christian ideas that require the intervention of a God in order for them to work -- that don't fit with scientific findings as we currently understand them -- that have been proven wrong and have been acknowledged as wrong by the religion.

btw, the logical positivist view of Marxism takes the idea of the proletariat rising up against the elites and turns it into a coin flip. If it doesn't happen today, just you wait...

[harvey1]

I'm going to cut you off right here: you are attempting to draw a parallel between this unnatural structure which exists as an irregularity of the universe and the natural, regular, structure of the universe (which I am talking about) to make you point. That irregularity makes a huge amount of difference because it is not an essential part of being that which supports our existence (unlike the regular laws that we are discussing) therefore it does not lend itself to an anthropic solution.

Why not? As you mentioned, the anthropic principle can be used in all kinds of situations (e.g., oxygen, food, etc.). Of course, the danger which you don't seem to have much concern is for overdetermination. It is possible to use the anthropic principle to over explain phenomena such that the real cause is ignored.

I think it's unreasonable for anyone to dismiss the potential for an anthropic solution.

I don't dismiss the AP. I just don't think it is always valid. We could use the anthropic principle to explain just about every scientific observation. For example, let's imagine there's an infinite number of random worlds. Now, surely there's a world where a room full of monkeys typed the complete works of Shakespeare. There must be another random world where you wrote the complete works of Shakespeare. And, another for me to accomplish this feat. And, oh by the way, we happen to live in the random world where Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. How silly, isn't it?

What is the cutting off point here? I say the cutting off point is not a line which one can cross, but a transitional one where the AP looks less promising. In the atheist scenario we have definitely crossed over to what is a reasonable use of the AP. Not only are we asked to believe the cosmic coincidences are solely due to the AP, we are also asked to believe that those not so smitten with this principle are not thinking because they don't buy into all of this. It's just ridiculous.

or you can simply realize that if the atmosphere was sulphurous and the temperature was above boiling point and the food was unrefined petroleum products, then you'd either be non-existent or an entirely different creature living on a different planet.

A good use of the AP. And, the reason is simple. We observe many stars and galaxies in the universe, and this gives us good reason to use the AP. However, we don't observe worlds with monkeys typing out Shakespeare, so it is a bad use of the AP to say that it is merely a coincidence that Shakespeare happened to be the author of his works. Similarly, we don't observe an infinite multiverse being infinitely old (in fact, singularity theorems seem to rule against it so far), and therefore it is a bad use of the AP to say that this is the cause for the cosmic coincidences. Atheists are out of line by insisting that this is the cause, it may not be.

We can therefore assume that such cosmologists are not content with a God-given beginning.

Nor do I think they should be. However, looking for a lawful reason for the cosmic coincidences need not mean that the AP is the only game in town. For example, it might be mathematically required that the physical constants have the values that they do. That is, the pantheists might be right: there might be unifying principles in the Cosmos.