Hello, I am hoping someone can explain the atheist viewpoint to me on the validity and probability of God's existence.
Most atheists will claim that the facts show the concept of a God to be so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible.
But, this is not what the facts show at all.
The theory of Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, nor can it explain the existence of life from the first organic cell onward.
How does natural selection explain the eye, for example? How can atheists claim that complex organs like the eye could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time.
As for reptile-mammal transition evidence, where is it in "evidence"?
What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, actual. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.
For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, someone please show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.
The facts show that what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and we all rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation.
It seems that the evidence supports the concept of God, rather than the atheistic claim that "God probably doesn't exist".
Giving you a theistic answer to your questions ...
People use words all the time, that they don't have a clear definition of. They think they know what a word means "in context", but do they really? People use such words as ...
G-d, exists, proof, validity, probability, nature, concept, likely, considered, impossible, evidence ... these are difficult philosophical concepts, that should only be wielded by philosophers after decades of training, and only with the safety on ;-) There isn't enough time to go into it. It would all take longer than counting the grains of sand on a beech, one by one. The dictionary isn't a very good alternative either, since there are ideological deficiencies with any dictionary (there is no neutrality in rhetoric). So what can us average folks do? I will let other folks post on evolution and convergent evolution, since they are more skillful in that area that I am.
So where to start? Where did the Enlightenment go off the rails? The Enlightenment was Sophistry 2.0. In ancient Athens, in Sophistry 1.0 ... there were teachers of rhetoric (useful in politics and law) who for a fee, could teach you how to persuasively argue any side of any question ... aka baffle the hoi polloi with nice sounding bullshit, how to prejudicially sift evidence of truth or falsehood. City state politics flourished for about 200 years, until first Alexander, and later Caesar, put an end to it. This argumentativeness was silenced by authoritarianism for over a thousand years, until the rise of the first universities in the Middle Ages. Eventually the universities, revived skepticism, both constructive and destructive, for the first time since ancient Rome. As part of this skepticism, in ancient Greece and early modern Europe naturalism and materialism was in vogue, along with rationalism. Naturalism rhetorically bridged the gap of not knowing what separated living from non-living things. Once again in the absence of dampening authoritarianism, freethinking and free speech got more and more common. Engaging in thinking and speaking/writing in the public domain is implicitly political. And so Sophistry 2.0 came about. What is attractive about sophistry? Those who practice it are sophisticates of course ;-) They also tend to come from the non-conforming parts of society just as the case with Socrates.
So all of this amounts to just so much ... yadda yadda ... whether you are a theist or not. And if you are gullible, you will be convinced by whoever is successful marketing to you. We are all consumers of unnecessary junk. The Enlightenment was all about people who were not at the center of the power structure, wanting to change their relative positions more in their own favor. But if you are an actual individual, who doesn't kow-tow to authorities ... aka you are socially marginal ... then instead of making a square hole fit your round peg, you will reshape the hole so the peg fits better (the average conformist does the opposite).
So basically, to an atheist, a theist, regardless of educational and professional background is a prima facie idiot, no different than someone who claims that the Nazca lines were designed by ancient astronauts. This is the meta-dialog, actual evolution fact and theory don't matter.