Creation or Evolustionists theory

There is atheism and there is pseudo-atheism. I am limiting my arguments to the former.

What is the difference between: spirits, gods, and ghosts?

I have always said that literacy increases the probability of atheism (and later, I added the weak qualifier, rational thinking).

The premise is that correlation = causation between atheism and literacy/rational thinking. The implication is NOT that most literate people will become atheists.

Rather, I am saying that holding everything else equal (i.e. no atheist parents, no alien mind control, and no mental diseases), literate and rational people are more likely than illiterate people to become atheists or go on the path to atheism. Hence correlation = causation.

You argue that the path to atheism has more to do with what they read and are interested in rather than the ability to read per se. That is all well and good as long as you acknowledge that the ability to read and comprehend is the underlying cause for atheism, without which the probability remains the same as for illiterate people.

I question the efficacy of Youtube in causing atheism. Would a poor and illiterate farmer in South Asia be convinced to give up all his gods by watching Youtube videos in his language on atheism? It is probably less effective than reading books.

You're thinking about probability is clouded by a teleology.

What is the probability that your circumstances at the time of your last post would become the precise where you are, how you are circumstances of four hours later?

Even within the minutiae of our tiny little lives, and with out best efforts to exert control, there are an infinite number of variables separating any one snapshot of your existence from the variations that could have been.

On the other hand, granting that you exist four hours later, it was a certainty that of all those possible snapshots, you would be some where and some way. If you consider how you came to those circumstances, you might notice a chain of events that amazingly seem to be the only things that could have lead to that specific circumstance- which might even be true. At the same time, looking back, the progression of events themselves- the "things" leading to a specific set of circumstances- are pedestrian- even "inevitable." Any given moment of reality is the product of the specific events leading up to that snapshot. Looking forward over even a little time, the "odds" of any given snapshot are incalculable, but the probability of some circumstance is 1.

So when you look at the universe and say that it's "improbable" to have arrived at this set of circumstances, that's only superficially true. This set of circumstances is no more or less probable than any of the infinite alternatives- and it was certain that if a being capable of such contemplation were to exist, some series of equally improbable events would have led to the set of equally improbable circumstances that allow for the existence of such a being.

In short, the fact of your existence is evidence of circumstances that allow for such an existence. That is all. As some set of circumstances is certain, the existence of this particular set of circumstances is not evidence that the universe has been moving with purpose toward this particular set of circumstances. And it most definitely does not amount to evidence that the universe was "designed" or otherwise made to progress to a point at which this place and time might facilitate your (or our) existence. That's pure ego.

Any theory that is so flexible is not testable because it accommodates everything.

You use the word infinite very casually. You say that this set of circumstances is no more or less probable than any of the infinite alternatives, assuming that these infinite alternatives even exist. By its very definition infinity is not an attainable state that can be achieved in reality, it is not a number, and any use of it by itself or as a means of extrapolating is a huge act of arrogance. But let's discuss your notion of infinity, even assuming that there are an infinite number of possible circumstances, that doesn't mean that every combination will work. For example, there are an infinite number of even numbers on the number line but the probability of there being an "odd" even number will always be zero. So even with your liberal usage of infinity you still end up with dead ends, universes that cannot exist at all, and others with both favorable and prohibitive conditions. Also further to the point, if one were to assume there are an infinite number of possible circumstances, one could reasonably argue that some universes have a Creator whiles others do not. I believe there are some serious problems in this line of thinking and even more indicative of your own "pure ego". The biggest problem with theories concerning infinite circumstances, or rather multi-universes is that they are essentially untestable, and because it is not falsifiable it should not be taken as real science. In the end, the idea of a multi-verse is just as contentious as other origin of the universe philosophies, and should not be labeled as scientific.