Atheism is irrational

[Atreyu]

There was a beginning, it’s the Big Bang. What happened before that is unknown as yet – which doesn’t mean it had to have been done by God. That’s just a red herring – in fact, so’s your second ‘issue’. It exists; what’s the point of trying to figure out why? Leave that to the philosophers and theologians and let them hammer something out.

Well isn’t that what we’re doing here? Hammering something out, as amateur philosophers? I think that “why” the Universe exists is a very important question, as it goes completely against everything that we understand as science for something to come out of nothing.

Religion hasn’t done squat to answer the question of how the universe physically came to be (okay, God said ‘let there be light’, but what actually happened to make that light?) and it’s pretty thoroughly torn by disagreements on the question of why existence.

Well, apart from the teaching of ex nihilo, which is completely in accord with the Big Bang. And, according to someone who should know (my tongue is in my cheek at the moment) - Dan Brown - the Big Bang theory was invented by a Catholic monk. In fact, how much of what we know today as science was invented by Catholics, throughout the ages? A fair amount I would guess. The Catholic world-view encourages scientific investigation. Galileo was an exception, not the rule. In fact, even as early as the turn of the 5th century, Augustine of Hippo recognised the importance of science. I’ve lost the reference, but he said something like “if valid and confirmed science contradicts our interpretation of Scripture, then we must reinterpret Scripture, since the science cannot be wrong, and the Scripture cannot be wrong, but our interpretation can”. He said it much more eloquently than I, but I’m pretty sure I’ve demonstrated his ideas accurately.

This is one of the things I really admire about atheism, and which makes me think of it as a more reasonable position: atheists generally aren’t afraid to admit they might be wrong about something (here I discount strong atheism a la Dawkins). They don’t try to antagonize scientific thought and effort with only the justification of ‘my religion says it’s this way instead!’. Not that all religious people do act like that, of course – but it does seem to be far more common.

Atheists by and large are completely and utterly wrong about abortion. From a purely philosophical point of view, if you define murder as the intentional killing of an innocent human being, then abortion is murder. Therefore everyone who believes that human life is important should be anti-abortion. This is not the case, and it demonstrates to me just how far atheists can get it wrong. And I would ask that we don’t turn this into a debate on abortion - so if you disagree with me, just say so and we’ll leave it at that - I’m just using it as an example.

 

[Mirdath]

Well isn’t that what we’re doing here? Hammering something out, as amateur philosophers? I think that “why” the Universe exists is a very important question, as it goes completely against everything that we understand as science for something to come out of nothing.

Science is not concerned with ‘why’, but with ‘how’. If we’re playing at being philosophers, science should be incidental to the discussion

Well, apart from the teaching of ex nihilo, which is completely in accord with the Big Bang. And, according to someone who should know (my tongue is in my cheek at the moment) - Dan Brown - the Big Bang theory was invented by a Catholic monk. In fact, how much of what we know today as science was invented by Catholics, throughout the ages? A fair amount I would guess. The Catholic world-view encourages scientific investigation. Galileo was an exception, not the rule. In fact, even as early as the turn of the 5th century, Augustine of Hippo recognised the importance of science. I’ve lost the reference, but he said something like “if valid and confirmed science contradicts our interpretation of Scripture, then we must reinterpret Scripture, since the science cannot be wrong, and the Scripture cannot be wrong, but our interpretation can”. He said it much more eloquently than I, but I’m pretty sure I’ve demonstrated his ideas accurately.

William of Occam was a monk too! Throughout the Middle Ages, monks were pretty much it for literate people in Western Europe and we owe a lot to them. We also are indebted to Islamic scholars for their enormous contributions to science and math, among other people. That paraphrase of Augustine is great – and an attitude I wish more religious people held

Atheists by and large are completely and utterly wrong about abortion. From a purely philosophical point of view, if you define murder as the intentional killing of an innocent human being, then abortion is murder. Therefore everyone who believes that human life is important should be anti-abortion. This is not the case, and it demonstrates to me just how far atheists can get it wrong. And I would ask that we don’t turn this into a debate on abortion - so if you disagree with me, just say so and we’ll leave it at that - I’m just using it as an example.

I disagree, and from a purely philosophical point of view too. But let’s not take this one any further

 

[Atreyu]

Science is not concerned with ‘why’, but with ‘how’. If we’re playing at being philosophers, science should be incidental to the discussion

Yes! Isn’t that what I’ve been saying?

William of Occam was a monk too! Throughout the Middle Ages, monks were pretty much it for literate people in Western Europe and we owe a lot to them. We also are indebted to Islamic scholars for their enormous contributions to science and math, among other people. That paraphrase of Augustine is great – and an attitude I wish more religious people held

Indeed. I think you would find that most Catholics these days would hold this opinion - it is mostly Fundamentalist Protestants that hold their interpretation of Scripture above and beyond the clear results of science. By the way, I am a big fan of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I think Bobby Henderson was making a very valid point. Intelligent Design belongs in a philosophy or a theology class, NOT a science class!

I disagree, and from a purely philosophical point of view too. But let’s not take this one any further

Fair enough! So long as you understand my point of view.

 

[Atreyu]

More on Augustine, from This Rock:
Augustine warned against a danger among Christians of his day and ours. If the Christian insists on a certain scientific theory as if it were the teaching of the Bible, and it turned out to be wrong, then the unbeliever will reject the Bible wholesale and miss the saving purpose God has in composing it. This danger is so real that Augustine emphasized it a number of times in his writings. Unreliable knowledge of nature is not damning but it can be a stumbling block “if he thinks his view of nature belongs to the very form of orthodox doctrine, and dares obstinately to affirm something he does not understand.” In this case, the Christian’s lack of true knowledge becomes an obstacle to the unbeliever’s embracing the truth of the gospel. The great harm, says the bishop of Hippo, is not that “an ignorant individual is derided” but that “people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and . . . the writers of Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.”

…

The Literal Commentary [a] advises a two-step procedure. First, we must evaluate whether the scientific claim has any validity. This must be done by the methods of science, empirical observation and theoretical reasoning. It is not enough to quote the Bible against a scientific theory. If we are unsure about the conclusion, we can consider it false. “The truth is rather in what God reveals than in what groping men surmise.” This would be true in the case of spontaneous generation [as an explanation for the origin of cells]. It is a very different claim from those made about the structure of cells. Cell structures can be verified and tested. Spontaneous generation cannot be verified. It is a global statement about what cannot be-that is, no previous cause. And science cannot make statements about what cannot be, only about what is. So, Augustine would say that we can regard spontaneous generation as false unless someone can verify it.

Suppose someone says that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old, as Christians in the West believed for centuries. Again, we should test this claim by the means that science has at its disposal. For well over a hundred years historical geology has developed tests to show that the earth must be far older than ten thousand years. These tests are cross-checked and rechecked to make sure the time estimates are not flawed. Now what should we do? Shall we insist that the Bible teaches that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old? Could it be that our interpretation is wrong? Augustine advises the second step: “But if they are able to establish their doctrine with proofs that cannot be denied, we must show that this statement of Scripture . . . is not opposed to the truth of their conclusions.” He urges us to change our interpretation of Scripture, not because Scripture is to be ruled by science, but because no two truths made by God will contradict one another. All truth comes from God, whether discovered by science or by the Church in its interpretation of Scripture. The first question we must ask is whether a particular scientific theory is well-founded. If it is, then we must make sure we don’t read the Bible in a manner that contradicts sound knowledge of nature.

The most striking feature of Augustine’s commentaries on Genesis is his lack of firm conclusions. He offered different ways of reading the text but made few of them binding on his readers. How did he know when his reading was acceptable, and how can we know how to read Genesis properly? The Catholic Church has been guided by Augustine’s wisdom because it has never definitively ruled on how Genesis should be read.
I suggest reading the article Mirdath, I think you’ll like it.

[a]Augustine’s Commentary on the Biblical Book of Genesis, which you can find here.

 

[Suat]

according to the first law of logic, something can’t come out of nothing because it would be and not be at the same time in the same way. besides, we can only know about nothing in relation to something.

First, you keep quoting these laws, but I have not agreed to them, nor do I think that they are actually laws. I prefer Aristotle’s first law of logic A ≡ A.

it is entirely logical to conclude that there was an uncaused caused. logic and reality demand it. we’ve been through this. you avoid to show how #1 and #2 are logical, the only other possible origins of creation

I think that requiring 1 or 2 represents a fundamental misunderstanding of time, and that fact that we know it has not always existed. If we cannot agree on the concept of time, and that fact that it has only existed since the big bang, then there is no way we will ever agree on anything else. Requiring that an uncaused cause must be a supernatural being or stating that something must have come from nothing is also indicative of this same misunderstanding. In order to say that something came from nothing, you need to show that nothing was there in the first place. You cannot.

Slightly more depressing, rather than think about this questions, you automatically bring up God. What is the point of having a discussion if the answer to every ‘I do not know’ must be ‘God’?

so what? truth exists outside of our self

Yes, and it may surprise you that the truth does not always support particular theistic beliefs

then being and existence are not natural because there is no physical or mathematical reason that explains them. both physics and mathematics depend on being. being is primary. being is analogical and heterogeneous, on many levels. no being, no math, no physics.

What do you mean by being? Do you mean soul or personality? Keep in mind that you may be confusing two things, the how with the why. The distinction between the two has been beaten to death on this thread, and yet there still seems to be confusion. Given time, I have very little doubt that science will be able to explain ‘how’ we came to be. However, if you want/need a ‘why’, then you have to turn to religion or philosophy. That is why I do not think that it is possible to use scientific arguments for the existence of God. They ask completely different questions. God will always be an answer to ‘why’, he can never be an answer to ‘how’. On the other hand, science will always be an answer to ‘how’, but it can never answer ‘why’. Why not be happy with that and leave science to science and religion to religion?

the reason that radioactive decay even occurs is because of supernovas and the neutron flux that created unstable elements.

They also created stable elements .

this is impossible according to the first law of logic. something would be and not be in the same way at the same time. you can’t use reason and logic to conclude there is no reason and logic. all quantum mechanical observations were based on the fact that the universe is orderly and we can understand it. if existence comes from nonexistence, then there would be no order or truth.

I suggest reading up on your quantum Fascinating subject that does not seem to care about your rules of logic.

neither do i. but God’s primary and obvious evidence for existence is existence.

That is something that has to be accepted upon faith. Unless you have evidence?

 

[Atreyu]

I think that requiring 1 or 2 represents a fundamental misunderstanding of time, and that fact that we know it has not always existed. If we cannot agree on the concept of time, and that fact that it has only existed since the big bang, then there is no way we will ever agree on anything else. Requiring that an uncaused cause must be a supernatural being or stating that something must have come from nothing is also indicative of this same misunderstanding. In order to say that something came from nothing, you need to show that nothing was there in the first place. You cannot.

So you are countering the argument by saying that there was something to begin with, and this something caused the Big Bang? Well where did this first something come from? Isn’t this a form of infinite regression?

Slightly more depressing, rather than think about this questions, you automatically bring up God. What is the point of having a discussion if the answer to every ‘I do not know’ must be ‘God’?

Personally I don’t answer every “I don’t know” with “it must be God.” I just answer this “I don’t know” with “it must be God” because I am in fact defining God from this very “I don’t know”! (The “I don’t know” being the first cause).

Yes, and it may surprise you that the truth does not always support particular theistic beliefs

Can you give me an example of a truth that does not support Catholicism?

That is why I do not think that it is possible to use scientific arguments for the existence of God. They ask completely different questions. God will always be an answer to ‘why’, he can never be an answer to ‘how’. On the other hand, science will always be an answer to ‘how’, but it can never answer ‘why’. Why not be happy with that and leave science to science and religion to religion?

I completely agree.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Personally I don’t answer every “I don’t know” with “it must be God.” I just answer this “I don’t know” with “it must be God” because I am in fact defining God from this very “I don’t know”! (The “I don’t know” being the first cause).

I’d have thought that as a Christian you would difine God through the fact that you believe he came down to earth as man and died for our sins. Surely faith is more important then evidence?

Anyway defining God through the idea he caused the big bang is fundamentally flawed. It is a point of veiw that is no different to the views of Christians hundreds of years ago who thought the earth was the centre of the universe. They could only explain the earths existance with God, just like you can only explain the unvierses existance with God.

 

[Suat]

Personally I don’t answer every “I don’t know” with “it must be God.” I just answer this “I don’t know” with “it must be God” because I am in fact defining God from this very “I don’t know”! (The “I don’t know” being the first cause).

If that makes you happy, then great. It would not satisfy me, that is where we differ.

Can you give me an example of a truth that does not support Catholicism?

I think that the Catholic Church has an admirable position on this subject.

The Catholic Church only teaches that it is infallible on teachings of faith and morality (if I remember correctly), neither of which are universal or provable for either side. The ‘truth’ of these depends not only upon philosophical arguments, but also acceptance and belief in the bible, i.e. faith. For example, I would argue that their teaching on homosexuality is incorrect. You would argue that it is moral, and likely base that conclusion on passages in the Bible. However, I do not accept the Bible as a moral authority and we would have a never-ending discussion. Even something a little more black and white, say killing someone, becomes muddled because differences are apparently drawn between the circumstances surrounding the (un)fortunate person’s death. Therefore, I doubt that we can say with certainty that the Catholic church teaches the truth in faith or morality issues unless you want to get into a debate about the validity of the Bible’s claim that it is the Word of God. An interesting discussion, yes, but perhaps best for another thread .

As for issues that can be ‘proven’ true or false through evidence, the Church is normally silent on those (ignoring any view not put forth by the Vatican as official positions). Likely because they have made enough mistakes in the past with Galileo. I, for one, admire the Church’s willingness to accept the division between ‘truths’ that must be determined based upon faith and philosophical arguments and those that can be demonstrated by evidence. It tends to only deal with the former, something it needs to convince some of its protestant brethren to also do.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Yes, and it may surprise you that the truth does not always support particular theistic beliefs

as long as we agree that there is a truth, we have a lot in common.

What do you mean by being? Do you mean soul or personality?

anything that “be’s”. you, me, quadratic equation, devils, cats, warts, boogers, pizza, sun, marxism, quarks …etc. souls are immaterial beings meaning they can’t be other than they are (material beings can change, like an apple). the soul has a form, which is that which actually is in what exists of itself.

They ask completely different questions. God will always be an answer to ‘why’, he can never be an answer to ‘how’. On the other hand, science will always be an answer to ‘how’, but it can never answer ‘why’

i agree that science has its limits and area of application, but truth can’t contradict truth. science has its ultimate goal in truth.

science or physica can’t explain the origin of being because it is based on the fact that things “be”. it deals with being as sensible.

remember, both math and cannon balls be. this is primary. the fact that they have properties (accidents) such as quantity, time, action, quality, …etc. allows our senses to sense them. everything comes to us through our senses, directly and indirectly. things are sensible because of their properties or accidents.

accidents inheres in another, that which must exist in a substance. you don’t say “there is a hard” but “there is a hard object”.

I suggest reading up on your quantum Fascinating subject that does not seem to care about your rules of logic.

quantum mechanics deal with probability. it deals with the fact that we have a limited knowledge. to say that it proves existence from nothing is absurd.

nothing only exists in relation to something. a vacuum is something, it has limits, it can be in one place and not another, it “be’s”. so it really isn’t nothing if we can say where nothing is.

we know that in a vacuum electromagnetic fields exist, radiation propagates. as mechanical waves need matter to propagate, electromagnetic radiation need something to propagate through. so how is that nothing?

 

[Atreyu]

I’d have thought that as a Christian you would difine God through the fact that you believe he came down to earth as man and died for our sins. Surely faith is more important then evidence?

I come to have faith through an evaluation of the evidence. Faith is absolutely necessary; but blind faith is not. When I said I was “defining God”, I wasn’t trying to say this is my only definition of God. I’m not sure how to explain myself further. All I can say is that I’m not sure you understood what I was getting at here!

Anyway defining God through the idea he caused the big bang is fundamentally flawed. It is a point of veiw that is no different to the views of Christians hundreds of years ago who thought the earth was the centre of the universe. They could only explain the earths existance with God, just like you can only explain the unvierses existance with God.

Yes, I think you’re actually right here. However, I would say that the Christians hundreds of years ago who could only explain the Earth’s existence through God were actually right, as they use (in essence) the same argument that I am using. The only difference is that - hundreds of years later - I know more about the nature of the world and the Universe and so I can move the argument back to the real start of the Universe, at the Big Bang. If some massive changes in our understanding of physics were to take place some hundreds of years from now, which meant that the Big Bang actually isn’t the start of the Universe, then this still wouldn’t change my argument - it would just move it back a further step to the actual start of the Universe.

There are only two possibilities here:

1. 
   *]The Universe had a start.
   *]The Universe has always existed.
   
   If you believe in the second possibility, then you get into problems along the lines of an “infinite regression”. If you believe in the first possibility - as I do - then it matters not whether the Universe started with “the beginning of the world” (as Christians may have once believed) or with “the Big Bang” (as I believe), or with any other mechanism. What matters is that the Universe started, and so there is a first cause. Then, the above argument applies.

 

[Sixtus]

Atheism is irrational

Actually, I do not agree with you.

As athiest, I am free to do what I like when I like for as long as I like and not really give a damn about anyone. I after all am god [small g intended]. I can be as selfish as I want, as I am all that matters, your needs mean little to me. So you want my help, tough! I am busy, anyway, don’t care for all that ‘love thy neighbour trash’: the world helps those who help themselves, so don’t leave your wallet lying around.

I am free to steal since it would be stupid not to take advantage or your stupidity. You see the world is made up of two types of people: ‘Smart’ and ‘Foolish’. The Smarts control the Foolish. Everytime a Foolish is doing 'something good for charity, they are not really being benevolent, they are doing it because there is a Smart behind the scenes pulling the strings.

The meek shall inherit the earth! Ha Ha, the meek inherit nothing!! It is the Smarts who inherit the earth!!

What do I care about global warming. So long as I have more than enough to last me till I die, stuff everyone else.
I am free to take advantage of any and every situation and to use you whenever the opportunity arises. That is RATIONAL!

Putting my needs second to others, is irrational. ‘Hey there’s one parking space in the car lot, I will give it to that woman who has a car load of kids and I will continue searching’! Christ’s way is irrational by worldly standards. We are called to be irrational and follow Christ. It takes a lot of faith to be irrational.

Better to go into heaven ‘nuts’ than spend eternity in hell being very rational!!

 

[Mirdath]

Better to go into heaven ‘nuts’ than spend eternity in hell being very rational!!

What you described is not atheism but Objectivism (a la Ayn Rand). The two are not the same. Atheism makes no moral calls on whether self-sacrifice or selfishness is more worthy; it’s concerned only with the question of God and leaves morals and ethics up to the user.

 

[ribozyme]

Actually, I do not agree with you.

As athiest, I am free to do what I like when I like for as long as I like and not really give a damn about anyone. I after all am god [small g intended]. I can be as selfish as I want, as I am all that matters, your needs mean little to me. So you want my help, tough! I am busy, anyway, don’t care for all that ‘love thy neighbour trash’: the world helps those who help themselves, so don’t leave your wallet lying around.

Are you being sarcastic? Or dishonest? Are you a Catholic as your profile states?

By your tone, it seems to suggest the former.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Suat

For example, I would argue that their (the Catholic Church’s ) teaching on homosexuality is incorrect. You would argue that it is moral, and likely base that conclusion on passages in the Bible. However, I do not accept the Bible as a moral authority and we would have a never-ending discussion.

I would argue both from the Bible, and, as Plato argued (from the strictly rationalist point of view) that homosexuality is incorrect because it is irrational and shameful. Plato did not have or need the Bible to arrive at that conclusion because he was a rationalist.

That homosexuals now pretend not to be ashamed and to be perfectly rational in their conduct is sympotmatic of the moral relativism of our age. Things are right or wrong only if we **want **them to be right or wrong. By the same token, atheists find that God does not exist because God (especially the Christian God) gets in the way of ungodly values they have adopted and have no intention of abandoning. Then again, those who adopt ungodly values but cannot bear the shame of them might try to find a god who endorses those values. That is the strategy being developed in the more liberal Protestant churches, the ones that sanction homosexual marriage (even the consecration of openly gay bishops living with their partners). There can hardly be any clearer proof than this that the ungodly believe in their false and hate-filled lies because they want to, not because they are being totally objective and rational.

And, fortunately for you, this is not going to be one of those never ending discussions.

 

[Suat]

That homosexuals now pretend not to be ashamed and to be perfectly rational in their conduct is sympotmatic of the moral relativism of our age.

I do not think that they are pretending not to be ashamed. It is more likely that they simply are not ashamed .

There can hardly be any clearer proof than this that the ungodly believe in their false and hate-filled lies because they want to, not because they are being totally objective and rational.

Interesting.

 

[Suat]

as long as we agree that there is a truth, we have a lot in common.

There is truth.

anything that “be’s”. you, me, quadratic equation, devils, cats, warts, boogers, pizza, sun, marxism, quarks …etc. souls are immaterial beings meaning they can’t be other than they are (material beings can change, like an apple). the soul has a form, which is that which actually is in what exists of itself.

I will have to respectively disagree that ‘being’ or existence proves creation or Goddess/Goddesses/God/Gods/goddess/goddesses/god/gods etc anymore more than their existence proves creation by an even greater being. We will likely never agree on that.

 

[BlazingBolt]

I am a Catholic and I would have to say that Atheism is not irrational and arguing that it is is futile. Theism is not irrational either. If either was, then they would have been irrefutably proven so through reason as people have been arguing this forever. We have the ability to know good and evil and reason can lead us to either. How arrognat of us to think that we can know everything through reason or that our 5 senses are capable of discerning all that exists. We can reason away God, or we can reason him in to our lives, most likely we will reason which ever one we desire to be correct. However reason here is not what is important. What is important is what is in your heart. Believeing in God through reason is meaningless if you don’t believe in God in your heart. Denying that God exists can be done regardless of what your heart tells you. The mind can make us believe whatever we want. God speaks to us through our hearts and we should all keep our hearts open to the truth as they will be able to know what is true and good. From my experience coming out of catholicism, to atheism, and then back again to catholicism I feel that believing in God through reason alone can give you just as hard a heart as one who becomes an atheist through reason, we must be honest with ourselves and be humble. If we don’t believe in our hearts that God exists we should accept and admit that to ourselves as in my opinion that is the only way to actually clear the roadblocks for God to actually really and truly reveal himself to you. For me it was the revelation in my heart that Good and Evil are absolutely real through which God began to reveal himself to me. If there is no God then what are good and evil except mere ideas about which everyone has their own and which in the grand scope of the eternity of time and space are ultimately meaningless?

 

[Hastrman]

I posted most of this argument on another thread, but it’s the best argument (for this) I ever made. I don’t expect anyone who isn’t an Aristotelian to understand it, but…too bad. Maybe in trying to counter it you’ll learn something.

Here goes.

The Universe could be other than it is.

If it could be other than it is, it’s not necessary that it exist at all.

If it is not necessary that it exist at all, then its existence is dependent on something whose existence *is *necessary.

In order for that thing’s existence to be necessary, it must be a contradiction in terms for it not to exist. In other words, the only thing whose existence is necessary is existence itself.

In order to contain the massively high orders of being contained in the universe, this thing must have more being than all of them. Since one can always add another ontological step, this thing’s being must be infinite. If its being is infinite, it must also be perfect and eternal.

If it is perfect, it cannot lack anything that is present in the things contingent on it. Since the universe contains reason, this perfect being (which is pure existence) must also be rational, but perfectly and infinitely so.

This Thing We Call God. Quod erat demonstrandum.

PS. Since His existence is necessary but the universe’s isn’t, we may deduce that he is what is known as a subsistent form, an essence that doesn’t need matter to survive. However, since he must be eternal, he must not be a direct part of the universe he maintains. If he was, he would be mortal, because all composite substances are mortal–their forms can be separated from their matter. He is a subsistent form of which all being partakes, as all white things partake of whiteness (except that whiteness is not subsistent).

PPS. Don’t say since he can’t lack anything, he must contain evil too. Evil *is *lack, not an actual thing.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

MIrdath

Atheism makes no moral calls on whether self-sacrifice or selfishness is more worthy; it’s concerned only with the question of God and leaves morals and ethics up to the user.

Strictly speaking this is correct. For that reason atheism is empty of moral sensibility. Being empty, the atheist is free to create his own moral values … and if they are corrupt values, in his own mind he is ultimately accountable to no one but himself for the choice of those values. If his values are downright evil, no one can reason with him by appealing to the authority of an all just and all merciful God.

More’s the pity.

 

[rivertim]

Here goes.

The Universe could be other than it is.

…

Why? I know you are trying to create a philosophical argument following from a basic premise, but I think you have stepped off on the wrong foot. Using an impossible alternative is not a satisfactory starting point as we are dealing with what actually is present and not what it could have been. It is, it exists and to use arguments that say it could be other is not really proving anything. To consider other possibilities for the universe invites us to consider universes with different physical laws, or multiple gods or any other creative illusion you can put up.

Perhaps this universe is the only universe where all the ducks are lined up in a row (so to speak). All other possible universes are not capable of existing because the necessary conditions for their creation and survival are not met. This is the best it can be, and there is no other solution. Even if a perfect god did create the universe, it would be the best possible with no alternatives because a perfect god would not have an imperfect creation.

Atheism is rational because it is a position that says that there is no evidence for the existence of God i.e. it is rejecting what is unreasonable. There has been no leap of faith or any supposition, just a declaration based on the lack of evidence. The next step is to ask whether it is likely that there will be any evidence. If you do not think so, based on previous human history, then it is understandable to take the position that there is no God. Theism is irrational because it has no evidence that God exists and seeks to use faith, belief or philosophical argument as a way of explanation.