The more knowledge we gain about the natural world, and the more obvious it is that a creator is behind this space-time continuum, the more responsible we are to respond based on that knowledge about how we position ourselves towards God. If it was unjustifiable not to believe in God when knowledge about the natural world was a fraction of what it is today, how much more are we responsible today?
Let us suppose someone presents you a blueprint to make a factory with 500 complex, interlinked machines, but you have no idea about the origin of that blueprint, do you think its rather rational to suppose that very intelligent people made the planning and project of the blueprint of the factory, or trial and error of ink randomly splashing on the paper trillions of times, and suddenly, somehow, the blueprint emerged on the paper ?
If we calculate an astronomically high number of random trial and error attempts to make a minimal proteome for a first hypothetical cell, which I mentioned, is a theoretically lucky occurrence of one in 10"150000 trials, this is just a fraction of the picture. The odds are far far greater if we consider the probability to connect everything in the right order, like an electric circuit.
A minimal metabolic network for a first Cell is enormously complex. Following link gives an idea.
How Cellular Enzymatic and Metabolic networks point to design
If an atheist wants to tell me that my reasoning is based on ignorance or incredulity, i have to ask, where that person learned about the basics of logic.
God of the gaps and incredulity, a justified refutation of ID arguments?
1. if there is no money in the wallet
2. It's an argument of knowledge to say: There is no money in the wallet after you check.
3. The same happens in molecular biochemistry. We checked, and scientists discovered that DNA stores specified complex information, which is a blueprint, instructing the precise sequence of amino acids to make proteins. Such information has never been observed to emerge by chance, and therefore, we have evidence that something is extremely unlikely (e.g., that chance could inform the correct instructions to make proteins). Indeed, scientists will often debate whether an experiment's result should be considered evidence of absence. Something has proven not to be the result of X ( as chance, for example )
4. Intelligence can act towards achieving specific goals, and knows how to create codified language, and use that language to create blueprints, used to make complex machines, production lines, and factories. It can finely tune and arrange things to work in a precise fashion. it can shape and form parts that perform tasks by interacting like lock and key. None of all this has been observed to be achieved by any alternative non-intelligent mechanism. if anyone wants to propose an alternative to replace intelligence, it should meet the burden of proof, and falsify the claim based on empirical testing and falsification.
5. Hence, the argument of Intelligent Design as best explanation of origins is based on experiments and observation, gained knowledge and experience. Not from ignorance.
Sorry. NO. I have not enough faith to be an atheist.