I’m not addressing rote memory. I’m addressing the fact that there is a very well patterned reality that we emerged from. It wasn’t chaos or randomness. There may have been a random moving and bumping of essential elements as *stuff* excites and moves about and collides with other stuff, but what binds and what repels, over time, becomes the order and uniformity that emerges. Those patterns of bind and repel are not random. They are like laws, but they are also subject to environment (pressure, space, heat, cold, dry, moist) as to what forms (granite, marble, water, air, fish, insect, bird, furry animal, lizard).
I apologize for missing this jewel of a post. My laptop is a small mac air that doesn't format a response well so I don't use it to answer longish posts that I have to break up to answer. I use my desktop PC for that. When I work at home my desktop screens are being used for work...anyways this post was inadvertently missed.
I can understand somewhat how organization on a micro and macro level took place during the expansion of the universe with charged particles of electrons and protons and gravitational fields forming from larger objects that became ordered and work the same way throughout the expansion...natural laws.
I also understand that you believe that through the expansion of the universe those patterns of interactions formed "laws" without rational guidance from a Designer. You present a reasonable explanation. Not one I can agree with. I believe a Designer started the process and caused matter to have certain properties that once in motion would react certain ways and do certain things. I believe this because I've met the Designer not because I was there at the beginning of the universe.
The atheist posits that part of that structured process also forms the combination of materials in certain types of *stuff* that are required to develop awareness, a recognition of itself, and then a recognition of the underpinning reality. That recognition is rationality - the understanding that you emerged from a patterned reality and how that works.
This explanation is "rational" but, imo, it takes a leap of faith, to believe a nonrational process (like the big bang or evolution) can produce a rational product. As rational beings who are creative and can think beyond our bounds, we haven't been able to replicate a rational product from nonrational matter. Why should we think that is how we came to exist with a rational mind?
We think an omniscient omnipotent God is not necessary for that underpinning reality to exist, or to function in an expected manner. In some ways the belief in God can muck all that up when He decides His natural world needs to bend - which we really never see happen. We believe those natural patterns that we emerged from, that underpin us, and support even the formation of our awareness can *just* exist, like you believe God can *just* exist.
I don't blindly believe that God "just" exists. You would have a convincing case if that were true. I've interacted with Him many times over the course of many years. He is not a figment of my imagination nor do I believe because of blind faith. In order to make sense of the universe, for me, God has to be included in it because He exists.
In that sense, to us, your belief is a violation of Occam’s razor. We don’t see a jump from a rational, non random, patterned world to a rational God speaking and thinking it into existence as necessary or even useful to define our experience of it.
The existence of God violates Occam's razor ...as if that is the be all and end all principle of all things. I don't accept that it has that status.
From a google search "Is Occam's razor valid?"
"Ockham was not the first to discover this principle. It has been referenced as far back as
Aristotle, who wrote "the more limited, if adequate, is always preferable."
Ptolomy also used the principle to guide his explanations: "it is a good principle to explain phenomena by the simplest hypothesis available." Occam's razor was first attributed to Ockham in 1852 by philosopher Sir William Hamilton as he referenced the works of Ockham.
Occam's razor makes no absolute assertions. It does not claim that the simplest answer is always correct. It merely suggests that, among all possible answers to a question, the best bet is generally the one that requires the fewest assumptions.
The Argument Against Occam's Razor
Occam's razor is a very helpful heuristic tool for deciding between theories. However, relying on a simplified version of Occam's razor could potentially lead to oversimplifying a situation.
For example, if a doctor is examining a patient with a high fever and cough, they may settle on the simplest explanation: the patient has a cold. But without examining all the evidence, the doctor may miss other symptoms that reveal possible infections, allergic reactions or other life-threatening conditions.
Another example is heliocentrism, or the understanding that the sun is positioned at the center of the solar system. Astronomers
Nicolaus Copernicus and
Galileo Galilei had very difficult times convincing their Renaissance contemporaries that the Earth was not actually the center of the universe. It was much easier to believe that the sun revolved around the Earth and seemed to require fewer assumptions. However, with more evidence, the more complex heliocentric model is the correct one."
Can you show us why God is a necessity for what we non-randomly and rationally experience?
No, I can't because I cannot prove to you that God exists. I sincerely wish I could. I'm often frustrated that I can't.
It makes more sense, imo, that we, as rational beings, are derived from a rational source.