How can we explain our existence without a Creator?
A compelling answer to the question of Ulrich J.Becker has in my view NEVER been provided by ANY atheist. Usually, when this question is being asked the direction goes to poking holes and criticizing organized religions, pointing out the supposed shortcomings of religious books, in special the Bible. Claiming that the God of the Bible does not keep up his own moral standard ( genocide, slavery, etc. ). Arguing that every God concept is illogical or impossible ( ShannonQ ), most often I hear: There is no evidence of Gods existence, etc., or arguing that God has to show up and prove himself, or saying: I don't know what evidence would convince me that God exists, but God knows, so it's up to Him to provide it so I will believe ( nice blameshifting btw.). Other atheists claim not to be atheists, so not ruling out Gods existence, but being agnostics, that simply have not yet made up their minds, but soon after, when pressed hard, they start defending evolution, abiogenesis, that the universe can be eternal, that the brain can produce consciousness, etc. So they are atheists in the closet.
My answer to this is: None of these answers are GOOD justifications to be an atheist. The ONE and ONLY good reason in my view would be, starting to demonstrate how creation needs no creator. How a non-intelligent mechanism or agency can mimic and produce things better, that have the appearance of design and intelligent setup. That entails causing something from nothing physical ( the universe ), the implementation of the laws of physics which impose order, stabilize, and secure the forces that operate in the universe, permitting stable atoms, the fine adjustment of the universe on several levels, from the universe itself, to the earth, and biochemistry, to permit life, Instructional assembly information stored in DNA, using the genetic code (software) that directs the making of machines made of interlocked parts ( proteins ) assembly lines ( metabolic pathways ), and factories ( chemical cell factories ), membrane proteins ( factory portals ), DNA, amino acids, phospholipids, carbohydrates, the building blocks of life ( hardware ), RNA polymerase ( information retrieval/encoding ) messenger RNA ( transmission ) Ribosome ( translation/decoding ) dynein, kinesin ( taxis ) tubulins ( molecular highways ) mitochondria ( power generating plants ) ATP synthase ( power turbines ) the metabolic network ( electric circuits ), computers ( neurons) and so on.
In my understanding, calculating, forming abstract ideas, inventing, intending, having foresight, generating information, classifying, and last not least, being aware of beauty are all faculties that are essential and required to instantiate the described things above, which we have been discovered operating in the natural world. I have yet to see how non-intelligence can mimic intelligence, to be, in the end, a superior explanation to a designer.
Some try to sidestep that crucial question, starting to ask secondary questions, like: But how did God do it? How could he create from nothing? ( that's magic ), or arguing that I am using an argument from ignorance ( Because nobody has disproven the God claim, it must be true ). Well, the thing is, I am using inference to the best explanation, and my proposition stands, until proven that a non-intelligent causal mechanism is a more case-adequate explanation.
Some are arguing that I am arguing from ignorance. No, I am not. Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. Provided the proposition, together with its competitors, form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive class, eliminating all the competitors entails that the proposition is true. Since either there is a God, or not, either one or the other is true. As Sherlock Holmes's famous dictum says: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however not fully comprehensible, but logically possible, must be the truth. Eliminative inductions, in fact, become deductions.
And rather an argument from ignorance, intelligent design wins based on inference to the best explanation, positive evidence. Basically all-natural phenomena demonstrate the imprints and signature of intelligent design. We see an unfolding plan, a universe governed by laws, that follows mathematical principles, finely adjusted on all levels, from the Big Bang, to the earth, to permit life, which is governed by instructional complex information stored in genes and epigenetically, encoding, transmitting and decoding information, used to build, control and maintain molecular machines ( proteins ) that are build based on integrated functional complex parts ( primary to quaternary polypeptide strands and active centers ), which are literally nanorobots with internal communication systems, fully automated manufacturing production lines, transport carriers, turbines, transistors, computers, and factory parks, employed to give rise to a wide range, millions of species, of unimaginably complex multicellular organisms.
Chance to find a message written on a cloud in the sky: "Jesus loves you" randomly, is as DNA creating its own software, and upon it, writing a complex algorithm to make a protein by accident. DNA base sequencing cannot be explained by chance nor physical necessity any more than the information in a newspaper headline can be explained by reference to the chemical properties of ink. Nor can the conventions of the genetic code that determine the assignments between nucleotide triplets and amino acids during translation be explained in this manner. The genetic code functions as a grammatical convention in a human language.
So again. Be my guest, and feel free to answer Ulrich Becker's question. I am all ears.