What are the strongest arguments for atheism?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

[harvey1]

I don't accept this argument at all. Why do you think that our best minds might represent a good standard to judge nature by?... we cannot get a handle on the complexity/simplicity of nature.

Our best minds postulate the possible algorithms that nature could have taken, but didn't. Had nature taken those other paths, there would be nothing bizarre in those possibilities, just that we wouldn't have been here because ultimately those possible algorithms do not match up with the complex nature of our universe. Nevertheless, those other possible strategies that nature could have taken (but didn't) are not to be forgotten. They now represent a path of possibility. The more paths there are, the more lucky we are that we are here. Many of the possible paths are not considered by the best minds because the best minds are smart enough to know those paths won't give them the results they are looking for. So, the paths of possibility are perhaps infinite in number.

As an atheist, you have to explain this. You can't just ignore these other possibilities as meaningless. There's no laws that we know of that prevent them from being a legitimate possibility. You have to explain why our universe had the dumb luck that you are attributing to the beginning state. It is unreasonable to cite dumb luck unless you can show that the chances are within a reasonable grasp of happening as a one-time event (e.g., 1/5 chances).

This fact and the clear vector towards a simple origin (implicit in regressive classes) is what builds the case for a god-free beginning to things i my mind. On the other hand, the unprecedented appearance of an intelligent creator with a will to create represents a massive discontinuity and a major explanatory problem for us.

Not so, QED. The clear vector towards a simple origin reflect a global property of the universe that even the ancients recognized and attributed to God. For example, Jesus compared the Kingdom of God to the growth of a mustard seed (the smallest plant seed known in that time). The global nature of that principle, even applying to the universe itself, is clear evidence that a God is at work in the world. If atheism were right, we would not expect to see general principles at work in the universe that affect all complex systems with such degree of commonality and predictiveness. Rather, we would expect to see a hodge podge series of organization in the universe to unparallel degree.

This is not the only problem, like the icing on the cake we also have the questions of free-will

Free will is more of a problem for atheism than it is for theism. I think free will is no problem at all for theism.

the Epicurean puzzle concerning the existence of evil (and general nastiness that befalls life every now and then)

Yes, true, however there's good reason to suppose that these things have a purpose since the history of life has seen progressive movement from a state of chaotic assembly of elementary particles to the development of societies that feed the poor. All the theodicy issues tell us is that complexity is a lawful process that stays consistent even when faced with issues of pain and suffering.

and the fact that every so often (but always in the dim and distant past) men make extraordinary claims about seeing and hearing from god himself. A major part of all scriptures are accounts of one-to-one meetings with the almighty, yet all this activity seems to have ceased during more recent, (dare I say critical or less gullible) ages.

And, yet, throughout all this chaos that you cite, there is a trend toward more unification in religion and, if complex system models are right, religions will evolve into perhaps one religious view that incorporates key aspects of each of the major religions. Something that you would expect if there is a God (in fact, each of the major religions expect this to be so at some point since their earliest writings).

The concept of god is an obvious one and has always been around. It is one which fits right into the vacuum of human imagination when run-out to it's maximum extent. It also has the handy property of imbuing the self-appointed messengers of the notion with vicarious authority. Indeed an ultimate authority that cannot be questioned.

Atheism is running into trouble. Quantum laws have just about single-handedly made materialism into an implausible ontology, and the science of complex systems is showing that the universe is organized according to mathematical structure that shows self-similarity for non-related systems, thereby showing that the universe is governed by eternal laws. These eternal laws cannot be postulated without the concept of mind, hence the days of atheism are few in number as the evidence continues to accumulate. There will be a fair number of stragglers to theism, but they are losing the influence that they once had. Pantheism is becoming the alternative to atheism, and the question to be decided in the future will be the discussions between pantheists and theists. Atheism will be extinct.

[harvey1]

Quite possibly(although the either or is a little simplistic) there may be universes as you describe but they would not bring forth such questions as we are discussing.

I hope you're not misunderstanding me here. I'm talking about what if the universe had been a 1D world where nothing else happens. Do you think that was possible?

This argument also assumes that it is a one shot universe(ie. 1 chance in infinity) but this is not my contention. Although you are obviously correct in your reasoning if there was a single shot and we were it then it would be very unlikely that this was the case (although not as you state zero chance). Infinite possibilities allow infinite probabilities so the realisation of an infinitesimal probability, although small in the one shot universe, would become inevitable in a "universe" of infinite opportunity.

This is the same issue that QED has raised. Let me tell you what I told him. If we are talking about an infinite metauniverse, then perhaps somewhere in that infinite metauniverse the infinitesimal probability becomes infinitely possible (as you suggest). But, this is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if the infinite metauniverse was actually "nothing," then it is infinitely impossible for that world to evolve since it has no spacetime. Similarly, if the infinite metauniverse was actually a 1D world that does nothing but be a 1D universe, then this universe too has no possibility to evolve. Same with a whole slew of other conceivable geometries to spacetime. In fact, we can imagine perhaps an infinite number of geometries that if that world had that kind of geometry and features, it would never evolve further. This is what I mean that such universes do not have the right class to be the kind of universe that could produce our universe, even in principle.

What you are not considering is all those other conceivable worlds that had we happened to have had that conceivable world, there would be no possibility for further evolution. My question to you is why did we get so lucky as to have the type of geometry that not only could evolve, but a type of geometry that is so sophisticated that our best minds cannot produce a simulation that comes even close to emulating our world?

We are unable to extrapolate to nothing in this way. We always are left with something. Furthermore if we are to say t=0, by the same logic we must also accept that t= infinity. Spacetime geometry does not reduce to zero it merely takes on a different spacetime ratio.

There are scenarios in both string theory (e.g., "bubbles of nothing") and cosmological theory (quantum cosmology) where t=0 is considered. Here's an interesting review:

One widely used notion in quantum cosmology is to assume such a state of "nothing" or zero size from which universe can initially tunnel (p.6) (...) One then might conceive of quantum tunnelling to this early minimal action. However, this assumes the notions gleaned from standard quantum mechanics can readily be extended to the universe as a whole. It also requires a pre-existing state of nothing still obey the usual laws of physics: why such a state exists and whether it can spawn infinite other universes is also to be understood.(p. 43)

[Curious]

I hope you're not misunderstanding me here. I'm talking about what if the universe had been a 1D world where nothing else happens. Do you think that was possible?

As you are asking this question then the logical conclusion is that our universe is not such a universe but others may well be.

I'm saying that if the infinite metauniverse was actually "nothing," then it is infinitely impossible for that world to evolve since it has no spacetime. .. What you are not considering is all those other conceivable worlds that had we happened to have had that conceivable world, there would be no possibility for further evolution. My question to you is why did we get so lucky as to have the type of geometry that not only could evolve, but a type of geometry that is so sophisticated that our best minds cannot produce a simulation that comes even close to emulating our world?

You seem to believe that the probability of a nothing universe would in some way be more likely than any other type of universe which is what I cannot understand. Of all possibilities how would nothing be more likely than something when we have not a single verifiable observation that nothing actually exists anywhere in the known universe? How are we luckier than a fish that is lucky enough to be born into the sea or a cactus that grows in the desert or a chemosynthetic bacterium that lives on the seabed next to a volcanic fissure. Life has a habit of finding ways to adapt to environment. Particular environments will sustain life more readily than others but there is nothing to suggest that this universe is the only type of universe that could sustain life or indeed let life evolve.

There are scenarios in both string theory (e.g., "bubbles of nothing") and cosmological theory (quantum cosmology) where t=0 is considered. Here's an interesting review:

One widely used notion in quantum cosmology is to assume such a state of "nothing" or zero size from which universe can initially tunnel (p.6) (...) One then might conceive of quantum tunnelling to this early minimal action. However, this assumes the notions gleaned from standard quantum mechanics can readily be extended to the universe as a whole. It also requires a pre-existing state of nothing still obey the usual laws of physics: why such a state exists and whether it can spawn infinite other universes is also to be understood.(p. 43)

Theories based on assumption are not the best examples to support your argument. As for string theory, when someone actually produces data derived from it without first having to in some way change the theory, then I might actually give it more credence.

[harvey1]

You seem to believe that the probability of a nothing universe would in some way be more likely than any other type of universe which is what I cannot understand. Of all possibilities how would nothing be more likely than something when we have not a single verifiable observation that nothing actually exists anywhere in the known universe?

I don't know what you mean by "we have not a single verifiable observation that nothing actually exists." That statement doesn't make any sense to me since nothing is not something that exists, it implies the lack of something that exists. We see this concept applied to the universe all the time. For example, we know from physical anthropology that there was a time when humans did not exist, i.e., they were nothing. We know from astrophysics that there was a time when our solar system did not exist, i.e., it was nothing. Similarly, we have good reason to believe that at one time the whole universe would fit comfortably inside the shell of a hydrogen atom. It's not very hard to imagine that a fraction of a fraction of an attosecond prior to that the volume of the universe was zero, i.e., the universe was nothing. This is all consistent with our observation, in fact, observations demand that we consider that nothing is a common origin and a common end to many of the things in the universe, perhaps the universe itself too.

How are we luckier than a fish that is lucky enough to be born into the sea or a cactus that grows in the desert or a chemosynthetic bacterium that lives on the seabed next to a volcanic fissure. Life has a habit of finding ways to adapt to environment. Particular environments will sustain life more readily than others but there is nothing to suggest that this universe is the only type of universe that could sustain life or indeed let life evolve.

The analogy does not apply if there is never an ocean environment that would make a fish's life possible. Or, if there is never the emergence of life to make a cactus growing in the desert possible. This is what is the subject of discussion. Why is it that the beginning state environment that made any kind of further evolution possible, why was that particular environment so unique that it could in principle evolve in the first place? Why wasn't it nothing? Why wasn't it a simple 1D universe? Why was the complex features of that particular environment so conveniently in-line with exactly what was needed to make evolution possible--an evolution which we are nowhere close to simulating from first principles? Your argument using the weak anthropic principle does not apply since it doesn't answer that question. In order to apply the weak anthropic principle you'd have to show that there was nothing extraordinary of an environment that allows evolutionary development into complex features versus an environment that is totally nothing. However, that's absurd since an environment that is totally nothing is quite different than an environment allowing evolution by the mere fact that an environment that is totally nothing (or 1D universe) has no interesting features whatsoever. Why would the beginning state favor a complex environment that we cannot simulate using rather straightforward assumptions?

Theories based on assumption are not the best examples to support your argument. As for string theory, when someone actually produces data derived from it without first having to in some way change the theory, then I might actually give it more credence.

You miss the point. It's not that I am resting on the notion that nothing is physically possible as demonstrated by string theory or quantum cosmology, rather, there is nothing in science that we know of that requires us to eliminate the notion that nothing is not possible. In fact, the best theories so far give strong consideration to the idea. In case of string theory, it is looking like strings may require it. Certainly quantum theories already require virtual particles to pop in and pop out from and to nothing. So, I don't see why we shouldn't base our reasonable beliefs with respect to whether atheism is reasonable based on what we consider scientifically reasonable. If we cannot use science to pursue an understanding of whether atheism is unreasonable, then are we to say that atheism is beyond serious inquiry? I think not.

[NGR]

Okay, this is a new argument for atheism which hasn't been presented on this thread. Not surprisingly, I don't think it holds water. One can be right for the "wrong" or misdirected reasons, and one can also be wrong for the "right" or well-directed reasons.

You left out a third option which is that one can simply be wrong.

Had the same ancestors glorified evolutionary theory (e.g., the pantheist Anaximander in the 5th century BC), then you would be talking about how perceptive and brilliant they were even though they came up with their views for reasons other than the reasons that Darwin et al. used to be convinced of evolutionary theory.

I'm really not sure where this little anecdote fits into our debate but if the theory of Evolution had been put forward a couple of thousand years ago our understanding of biology now would be considerably more advanced. Evolution is an observable fact and in its case we could adjudicate on the merits of an ancients ideas. God is not an observable fact but simply a product of the human mind. We are in no better position to judge our concept of God than the ancients were 10000 years ago.

From a theist perspective, it is understandable that ancients did not have a good grasp on God. The universe requires a scientific understanding to conceive of the complex relationships that exist, so it is understandable to confuse those relationships in a manner that leads to an inaccurate view of God. However, as humans continued to understand the world, their understanding of God improved as we see from the history of theism.

God is a human concept manufactured to be the security blanket for the human race. We don't understand God, all we have done over the millennia is to find out what God isn't. We place a label on something that we don't understand and in that vein God is a synonym for ignorance. When the light of knowledge shines on our God construct and its clay feet are revealed we shift the label to the next dark patch of ignorance. The point is that the knowledge light continues to burn brighter and we are finding that God becomes more and more nebulous and distance from our daily lives. We still cling to our security blanket because we are an immature species but as any parent knows there comes a time where development reaches a stage where such crutches are no longer required. Would that this occur sooner rather than later.

Evidence of this type is impossible to obtain even if their efforts did have some effect on their existence. We would need a parallel world where every attribute was exactly the same except that in parallel world B the people were all atheists.

Are you saying that worshipping a mountain God is the same as worshipping the thunder God is the same as worshipping the Sun God etc. Is any God worship sufficient for us to derive benefit, does it all automatically have meaning to you? The current Christian religion might have a problem with this as I'm sure the statement "thou shalt have no other God but me" is mentioned somewhere in their doctrine.

[NGR]

You'd have to ask an agnostic, but an agnostic should believe in God since a "no God" world is not realistically possible. As I mentioned to QED et al., the beginning state of the universe would require a God in order to explain why it is that we happened to have the class of universe that was capable of having inflationary universes. The algorithm for this kind of universe is exceedingly difficult for us to construct, and so far has alluded the best minds, so it is not reasonable to say that the universe had this special status at the beginning as a matter of random luck.

You state this as if it is some sort of truism. We don't know how the Universe came to be, we don't know what it is apart from an environment that obeys certain physical laws. We have limited knowledge of only one Universe it could be the only one, their could be an infinate number. If we don't know how the Universe came to be how is it possible to assign probability to its physical character.

All you are doing is assuming that the probability of ending up with our Universe is low and therefore its special enough for you to proclaim a purpose for its creation. Unfortunately you are working with your own manufactured data that does not necesesarily have any connection with reality. All I see is you stating that we are ignorant in a particular matter and therefore God did it. This seems to be a very weak argument to say the least.

Therefore the agnostic is being too uncommitted by not moving over to theism.

Add an a to theism and I would agree with you.

[QED]

The clear vector towards a simple origin reflect a global property of the universe that even the ancients recognized and attributed to God.

Of course such things are attributed to God. It is the custom.

For example, Jesus compared the Kingdom of God to the growth of a mustard seed (the smallest plant seed known in that time). The global nature of that principle, even applying to the universe itself, is clear evidence that a God is at work in the world.

As the custom goes.

If atheism were right, we would not expect to see general principles at work in the universe that affect all complex systems with such degree of commonality and predictiveness.

And here you keep claiming the rights to this sort of regularity to be the exclusive property of god. Surely you can't expect to get away with this heist? Are we doomed to have this conversation forever? For it would take a non-trivial god to have the desire to construct a system that could lay down such laws, and you should not be at liberty to introduce this clever entity above the more parsimonious alternative of a self-extracting lawful universe.

Curious keeps running into the same brick-wall that I discovered in your notion of a non-single-shot beginning to everything. Something must happen to put a god in place, something must happen to put a (meta)universe in place. If something can happen then why can it not happen more than once?

Rather, we would expect to see a hodge podge series of organization in the universe to unparallel degree.

No we wouldn't, no eyes could evolve in a place like that.

[harvey1]

The clear vector towards a simple origin reflect a global property of the universe that even the ancients recognized and attributed to God.

Of course such things are attributed to God. It is the custom.

It is more than custom, there's good reason to attribute holistic processes to a God since such behavior in the cosmos is inconsistent with a "no God" universe. If the universe was not run by holistic principles, then we would not see universality in the behavior of hundreds of different systems all across the world and universe.

And here you keep claiming the rights to this sort of regularity to be the exclusive property of god. Surely you can't expect to get away with this heist? Are we doomed to have this conversation forever? For it would take a non-trivial god to have the desire to construct a system that could lay down such laws, and you should not be at liberty to introduce this clever entity above the more parsimonious alternative of a self-extracting lawful universe.

A self-extracting lawful universe, the kind that atheism would need in order to be right, wouldn't behave with any kind of universality in place. It would just be one of a large number of other potential worlds that would not self-extract enough to explain what we see. Therefore, each time the world organizes around set principles, this would be yet another uniqueness to this self-extracting universe that we could not anticipate prior to that point. As an analogy, think of a chess game. One cannot in general anticipate what kind of moves two grand masters at chess will implement deep into the game. If they kept repeating the same kind of moves, then their games would be somewhat predictable. This would not be expected by grand masters because they would not be effectively exploiting all the strategies out there to defeat their opponent. However, if we were an extraterrestrial alien intelligence, it would not be evident that grand masters were playing chess if we could not see that there were rules. We would look for patterns of repeatability in order to show that intelligence was actually behind the chess moves. If the grand masters did repeat their moves at many areas of the game, this would indicate to us as extraterrestrials that intelligence was involved in the game because repeatability would be demonstrated. Just following certain basic rules (i.e., the rules of chess) and taking possession of pieces is not enough to establish intelligence since the chess board and pieces could just be behaving "naturally." Repeatability across many actions would tell us that there is some sophisticated algorithm controlling the movements, and this algorithmic behavior is evidence of intelligence.

Curious keeps running into the same brick-wall that I discovered in your notion of a non-single-shot beginning to everything. Something must happen to put a god in place, something must happen to put a (meta)universe in place. If something can happen then why can it not happen more than once?

Ugh. QED, I post a response to this question and you do not answer the posts! Please, if you want to seriously discuss this issue, when I post a response to that issue please post your response.

Again, a process is a structure. The structure of a process is an algorithm. An algorithm tells us how the process behaves. If the behavior is sophisticated and unique enough, the process will A) produce self-extracting behavior. If the process is still more unique, you will B) get multi-generational self-extracting behavior but still predictable and nothing very interesting happens beyond that pont. If the behavior is yet more sophisticated and unique, you will C) get an evolving system whose future is so complex that the self-extracting entities that will come to exist cannot be predicted, but we will be able to know what it is not capable of producing due to the limitation of its underlying structure. A yet more sophisticated behavior of this process will result D) in such complexity that an infinite system in principle could produce an infinite array of complex features, including inflating universes, galaxies, planets, life, and intelligence, etc..

Now, the one-time issue is why did the behavior of our beginning state environment happen to have the structure of (D) such that it could produce the latter description of a sophisticated process versus (A)-(C) with those descriptions where no universes such as ours form? Had the universe been (A), (B), (C) [or nothing for that matter], then there is no universe. These represent a perhaps infinite number of dead universes. What I want to is why you think the universe was so lucky that (A)-(C) did not happen, but (D) happened. You have to explain how the one-time situation could exist even though it is entirely in contradiction to what we would expect of the nature of an algorithm for a much more sophisticated structure to exist from random luck over (A)-(C) [or nothing at all for that matter].

In the case of God, we need to re-examine our primitive assumptions in the first place. Notice that for the beginning state we make the assumption of causality and possibility. It is this assumption that we must make for the world to be a rational place, but it is the very assumption that entails a mind to exist. Therefore, for the universe to be a rational place requires for there to exist a God. Therefore, God exists as a result of the world being causal. Why is the world causal? Even the question assumes causality. There just exists no world, or concept of a world, that is outside causality. Therefore, there exists no world, or concept of a world, that God could not be required to exist.

Please don't ignore this argument any further. If you doubt it, then discuss your doubts so that we move along in our discussion.

Rather, we would expect to see a hodge podge series of organization in the universe to unparallel degree.

No we wouldn't, no eyes could evolve in a place like that.

Good to see that you still have a sense of humor. Just as a clarification, I'm not saying atheism is fully impossible, I'm saying it is practically impossible. There is an infinitesimal chance in hell that it is right in terms of producing the structures that we see, however it would not explain the behavior of the universe in terms of its grand organizing principles, and that just means that even if atheism could explain a self-extracting universe, the behavior of the self-extracting universe would not match a universe that shouldn't self-organize (i.e., assuming atheism were true).

[harvey1]

I'm really not sure where this little anecdote fits into our debate but if the theory of Evolution had been put forward a couple of thousand years ago our understanding of biology now would be considerably more advanced. Evolution is an observable fact and in its case we could adjudicate on the merits of an ancients ideas. God is not an observable fact but simply a product of the human mind. We are in no better position to judge our concept of God than the ancients were 10000 years ago.

All observable facts are "facts" because of the overall assumptions we hold to be true. The assumptions of atheists are wrong, and therefore their understanding of God in the universe is skewed.

God is a human concept manufactured to be the security blanket for the human race. We don't understand God, all we have done over the millennia is to find out what God isn't. We place a label on something that we don't understand and in that vein God is a synonym for ignorance. When the light of knowledge shines on our God construct and its clay feet are revealed we shift the label to the next dark patch of ignorance. The point is that the knowledge light continues to burn brighter and we are finding that God becomes more and more nebulous and distance from our daily lives. We still cling to our security blanket because we are an immature species but as any parent knows there comes a time where development reaches a stage where such crutches are no longer required. Would that this occur sooner rather than later.

On the contrary, atheism is a security blanket for those who find it displeasing that some of their freedoms are bounded by an infinite God. However, as the knowledge of the universe has grown, so has our understanding of the eternal nature of God and the gradual erosion of materialist and mechanistic concepts that atheism bet so much of its future.

Are you saying that worshipping a mountain God is the same as worshipping the thunder God is the same as worshipping the Sun God etc. Is any God worship sufficient for us to derive benefit, does it all automatically have meaning to you? The current Christian religion might have a problem with this as I'm sure the statement "thou shalt have no other God but me" is mentioned somewhere in their doctrine.

If your question is whether God is like a mountain, or God is like thunder, or God is like the Sun, then the answer to all those questions is "yes, absolutely." Of course, theism has continued to make progress and has learned that God is infinite and even though analogies are helpful to understand God's nature, no physical analogy comes close to fully describing God's immanent and transcendent nature.

[Curious]

I don't know what you mean by "we have not a single verifiable observation that nothing actually exists." That statement doesn't make any sense to me since nothing is not something that exists, it implies the lack of something that exists. We see this concept applied to the universe all the time. For example, we know from physical anthropology that there was a time when humans did not exist, i.e., they were nothing. We know from astrophysics that there was a time when our solar system did not exist, i.e., it was nothing. Similarly, we have good reason to believe that at one time the whole universe would fit comfortably inside the shell of a hydrogen atom. It's not very hard to imagine that a fraction of a fraction of an attosecond prior to that the volume of the universe was zero, i.e., the universe was nothing. This is all consistent with our observation, in fact, observations demand that we consider that nothing is a common origin and a common end to many of the things in the universe, perhaps the universe itself too.

There is nowhere in the cosmos(micro or macro) that has the total absence of everything. If we are to use what we know regarding the laws of conservation, then the assumption of a state of total absence of all is completely contradictory. Even your own viewpoint dismisses the notion of nothing as you believe (I presume) that before the universe there was God. If, as you believe, it is possible for God to exist without having to have had a beginning then how can you insist that the universe must have had a beginning as we understand it. As for the notion that by shrinking the universe eventually leading to a zero state, How many times would you have to tear a paper in half before you eventually were left with nothing?

The analogy does not apply if there is never an ocean environment that would make a fish's life possible. Or, if there is never the emergence of life to make a cactus growing in the desert possible. This is what is the subject of discussion. Why is it that the beginning state environment that made any kind of further evolution possible, why was that particular environment so unique that it could in principle evolve in the first place? Why wasn't it nothing? Why wasn't it a simple 1D universe? Why was the complex features of that particular environment so conveniently in-line with exactly what was needed to make evolution possible--an evolution which we are nowhere close to simulating from first principles? Your argument using the weak anthropic principle does not apply since it doesn't answer that question. In order to apply the weak anthropic principle you'd have to show that there was nothing extraordinary of an environment that allows evolutionary development into complex features versus an environment that is totally nothing. However, that's absurd since an environment that is totally nothing is quite different than an environment allowing evolution by the mere fact that an environment that is totally nothing (or 1D universe) has no interesting features whatsoever. Why would the beginning state favor a complex environment that we cannot simulate using rather straightforward assumptions?

My argument is in no way suggestive of any preference whatsover. My argument is that given the countless opportunities, it is highly likely that a universe such as this would exist as one of the many possible universes. Other universes could have life with divergent evolutionary paths or could just as easily be completely alien. To say that the environment must be unique to allow life or evolution ignores all the evidence. The argument you use for either a complex universe versus a null universe could equally be used in asking why there is a preference for there being a God versus there not being a God.

You miss the point. It's not that I am resting on the notion that nothing is physically possible as demonstrated by string theory or quantum cosmology, rather, there is nothing in science that we know of that requires us to eliminate the notion that nothing is not possible. In fact, the best theories so far give strong consideration to the idea. In case of string theory, it is looking like strings may require it. Certainly quantum theories already require virtual particles to pop in and pop out from and to nothing. So, I don't see why we shouldn't base our reasonable beliefs with respect to whether atheism is reasonable based on what we consider scientifically reasonable. If we cannot use science to pursue an understanding of whether atheism is unreasonable, then are we to say that atheism is beyond serious inquiry? I think not.

There is nothing in science that requires us to eliminate the existence of fairies but that doesn't mean they exist. To suggest that string theory can be counted amongst the best theories really does take the biscuit.Virtual particles, according to all observational data, cannot be seriously considered to pop out of nowhere. The higher energy the particle has, the quicker the energy must be repayed (or shorter the lifespan). One possible origin of these particles, as far as we can tell, could be enharmonic dissonance ( which in the loosest possible way could be compared with string theory).
As for atheism being unreasonable I disagree. While being a theist myself, I can see why the reasoning mind might come to the conclusion that there is no God.