http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Atheism defies logic because it presupposes an eternal non-created Universe. How can one even begin to use reason and logic to assert such a position? Neither ontologically, or deontogically, or pretty much any standard of logic can you assert that position. Everything we know of has ever been has a beginning and an end and a creator. How do you explain the Natural Laws? I can explain it pretty well using the Clockwork theory as well as the Computer Programmer theory. What have you got?
That's funny. God is supposedly eternal and non-created, yes? And god is everything, yes?
Maybe, just maybe, god = universe?
My atheism has nothing to do with science or cosmology or even logic, and neither does religion. I just happen not to believe in my own personal immortality, so the idea of god is essentially meaningless since there won't be anything for me after I'm dead.
Religion is supposed to teach humans not to hate each other but it seems to suck at that since few religious folks can be bothered to leave well enough alone and stop with 'god is love' and instead want to kill those who believe differently.
And yes this includes those GNOSTIC atheist who claim they have the answer, I get more pissed off at them than at the DEISTS since I understand them better than they understand themselves most of the time.
But if you (rhetorically, not to any specific person) want to talk cosmology or any other science and not sound like a lunatic try reading some textbooks, not popularized accounts or surveys or reviews, and at least try to figure out what the right
questions are. If you don't you're as bad as those atheists who refuse to acknowledge the role of faith in the world of religion.
Try reading Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology, by Peter Schneider, (it happens to be the book on cosmology I'm currently reading and it's quite recent, if you prefer geology then I'm reading Theory of Earth by Don L. Anderson, and I also have open Evolutionary Dynamics by Martin A. Nowack) then we can have a bit more specific conversation about what parts of the universe we are confused about, 'cause I see little understanding of it or much other science on RPF. There are multiple ways a universe can be considered infinite, and no amount of philosophical rhetoric can substitute for a mathematical, testable model that fits observations with error estimates in the parts per 100,000, as does for instance the "big bang theory with inflation" with the anisotropic distribution of temperature in the cosmic background radiation, or the theory of the D'' layer at the lower mantle/upper core boundary which is highly enriched in radionucleoisotopes and drives heat inward towards the core, counterintuitively to the idea that all heat flow is from the core outward, or we can talk about how evolutionarily stable strategies spontaneously emerge from certain real-world ecological settings. I could do with a deeper understanding of these topics myself as I am not an expert by any means and always have more to learn, and damn if this really isn't some of the most fascinating stuff I've ever read!
In other words, all the religion in the world doesn't change anything to do with technology, that's the purview of science. To conflate the two does neither any good.
/end rant.
)
