Firstly I believe in an intelligent first cause. I have been accused of arguing from a position of incredulity but I don’t regard that as a fair criticism. I can make the same argument to an atheist in that they can’t believe that there is a higher intelligence responsible for our existence. I believe that an intelligent first cause is far more plausible than a non-intelligent first cause.
When we look take a long look at our world and consider the complexity of a single cell then I find it very difficult to believe that that cell could be formed by the chance combination of particles that by chance came together to form atoms and molecules. It is my belief that my position is the more plausible of the two.
My advice is . . . quit digging. You seem to be deepening your hole.
In order to justify your argument from incredulity you double down with a tu quoque fallacy, and it isn't even an accurate one.
Also, it isn't that an atheist can't believe there is a god. We can believe there is a god, we just need to see the evidence first.
Finally, you have not shown how one is more probable than the other. I understand that these are beliefs, but to assign a probability to them tries to push your beliefs into the realm of statistics where they just don't belong. Perhaps you could say that you personally find the theistic/deistic argument more compelling both spiritually and emotionally.
Also we are able to distinguish right from wrong. We have a sense of morality that IMHO goes beyond personal survival which indicates to me an on-going interest.
Why would this require a deity?
Thirdly, I am a Christian. My Christianity essentially has one absolute, and without that one absolute I would not be a Christian. The Christian faith grew from the belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Paul tells us that if that isn’t true then our faith is in vain and we are, in his words, to be pitied. I think that he is correct. By resurrection I mean that Jesus died on the cross and was later resurrected into a new bodily form that was like, but at the same time different, than his pre-crucifixion body. It is my belief that God will at the end of time as we know it, resurrect all of creation in the renewal of all things, and (for lack of a better term), the resurrected Jesus was/is the prototype for our own resurrection.
I have read a number of books and listened to debates by Biblical scholars and others arguing both sides of the question of the truth of the resurrection. There are a lot of very bright and knowledgeable people on both sides of the issue but I find the argument for the resurrection far more compelling than the argument against. One of the simplest arguments is that if the resurrection story is either fabricated or mistaken there is no good reason for the movement to grow as strongly and quickly as it did. The argument against the resurrection is the almost solely the rejection of the possibility of it happening at all, as in every other case if someone died, other than for resuscitation, they have stayed dead. I find that position a little odd for anyone who believes in an intelligent first cause, they must believe that a miracle is possible as one would be required for God to get life started in the first place.
So you can't accept a naturalistic origin of life or first cause even though we have some potential pathways, but your incredulity doesn't seem to stop you from believing that a deity came down in the flesh and rose from the dead.
Why incredulous of one, but not the other?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
