Based on the logical law of excluded middle there are only two options as to what the metaphysical ontology of reality could be; that being the ontology of the metaphysics of reality is either Personal or Impersonal....
So the two options in more detail are:
(1) Reality in it's metaphysics (fundamental forces and processes) is impersonal: that is to say it is intentionless, purposeless, meaningless, unguided, unaware and lacks teleology.
(2) Reality in its metaphysics (fundamental forces and processes) is personal: that is to say it is intentional, purposeful, meaningful, guided, aware and has teleology.
Now position (2) would normally be classed under Theism and thus atheism being the absence of Theism (that is what the "A" means in Atheism, just like Asymmetrical means the absence of symmetry on a specific aspect of reality) would fall under position (1).
Now if a person says either position is more likely than the other to be true, they have a burden of proof.
Now I have never really seen any good positive arguments for position (1) from any atheists (both from academic or laymen - there are only a handful of positive classical atheist arguments which are all weak). The best I have seen atheists try to do is knock down any arguments for position (2). But even if they did that successfully and knocked down every argument for position (2) they have only reached a likely hood of either position being true on a 50/50 basis (but most just seem to assume position (1) with no positive justification after attempting that).
Imagine a debate on the number of stars; We have Evenstarists and Oddstarists. Now lets say the Evenstarists make a terrible argument that looks like this:
(Mock Evenstarist argument)
P1: My mother is a great counter.
P2: My mother counted the stars by the naked eye last night and the number was even.
Conclusion: The number of stars is even.
Now the Oddstarist might show premise (2) to be objectionable because you can not see all the stars in the universe especially with the naked eye, thus the argument fails.
Does that now mean Oddstarism is true? Of course not, to then assume Oddstarism is true would be a fallacious position (the Oddstarist by knocking down the argument for Evenstarism has only reached an agnostic position of a 50/50 likely hood of either position being true) until positive arguments are presented for Oddstarism. So people who support position (1) not only have to knock down all the arguments for position (2) but then in there place erect their own arguments (which hold up) until they can then claim position (1) is more likely than position (2).
So on that note, does any one actually know of any good deductive arguments for position (1 - atheism), (as there are plenty of powerful arguments for position 2 above)?
If so can you type down the best deductive argument you know for position (1) - (please make sure it is in deductive form though, so just put down the premises for your argument and then if you like you can expound each premise in a description below - oh and no links either please).
Like this post to subscribe to the topic.