1st sentence is correct. Second is just wishful thinking or bad science to think a conclusion has been made.
That's where I disagree. I think it is a big stretch to jump from unneeded to non-existent. What if in fact our physical laws are somewhat unique to our own universe, and gravity as we know it only functions here? What if there was a creator that "invented" gravity? We then prove that because we have gravity, a "creator" is simply not necessary. It's like the trust fund college student who declares that he doesn't need his parents. If he needs money, he'll just make a withdrawal from his trust. Anyway, the occam's razor argument has always been intriguing to me. We have "brilliant" scientific minds who cannot explain something as simple as gravity in the universe that we are effected by every second of the day. One says that there must be something that is completely invisible, undetectable, and immeasurable that makes up 82% of our universe, called "dark matter". Another says that it isn't dark matter, the problem with our gravity theories is that there are multiple parallel universes with their own laws of physics. They are outside of our own visible universe, so we cannot see them, but due to proximity, the physics of those universes effect our own. A third guy suggests that it might be possible there is a supreme force/being/something, with a perfect understanding of universal laws, and uses these laws to effect and shape the universe. Everyone then laughs and says, "nah, we're gonna stick with M-theory. It's simpler! Occam's razor!"
I have no religious affiliation and never have. The only thing I'm anti is anti talking in absolutes where there are none at the moment. You have a theory. I have a theory. Science has a theory. Organized religion has a theory, and yes they like to sell it as fact, which is why I have no religious affiliation. Everybody has a f'n theory. I'm not trying to convince you are anyone else of anything, other than theory ain't fact, and that's a fact!
True, but then you can also add the fact that there is no discernible evidence of one either. You cannot immediately and automatically attribute a present lack of absolute and complete understanding to the existence and presence of a god. That is a logical fallacy and an unwarranted stretch. If you will not accept relatively minor and reasoned extrapolations in science, then you cannot at the same time accept wild leaps in faith. That would be inconsistent. If you wish to compare god with science, then you need to employ the same standards.
Two of Einstein's quotes I posted earlier are revealing when put together. "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. " And "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." When he says "I prefer an attitude of humility", it is echoed in his statement "I want to know God's thoughts". Notice that he doesn't say "I want to BE God", which is what he would effectively become if he had all the knowledge of all things. Einstein understood that even he had a limited grasp on the concepts that create what we perceive to be reality. Even our concept of "time" is not fixed, and relative in the universe. Atheism, like most religions, starts with a conclusion. It is a conclusion reached from a limited amount of knowledge, at a fixed moment in time (fixed from our relative perspective, of course). If you cannot even describe the order and nature of life in our nearest neighbor galaxy, how do you make the leap that you know God does not exist? Einstein understood the value of humility. It is curiously missing in firebrand preachers, whether religious or atheist.
How do you distinguish between the belief in God and the occult? But in your defense you were never very bright to begin with. You don't, because you can't.
False anaolgy. Democritus's prediction was fundamentally based upon verifiable observation and established knowledge. God is merely an imaginary concept based on sweet f-a. To think it's the 21st century and there are theists who still seriously try to argue a childish imaginary friend can correspond with science and verifiable proofs. As if. Even the authors of the Bible tried to give a health warning for those gullible enough to believe pretend stories over reason. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. You Godbods really need to grow up.