Atheism is a lack of belief mentality which rejects the existence of anything supernatural.
You know that you are in trouble when your first statement is wrong. ‘Lack of belief mentality’ and ‘rejects the existence of’ should not be together in the same sentence.
By default, atheists are also naturalists and evolutionists.
No on both. Atheists are simply those who do not believe in God. Ascribing any other beliefs to them demonstrates a misunderstanding of the word. The evolutionists comment is also mildly disturbing as it shows that the author is quite ignorant of the world around him/her.
While atheism does not break any state or federal laws, it does break several scientific laws.
I do not understand this statement. Science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural one. Whether or not a person believes in the supernatural has no bearing on science.
A scientific law is defined as the observance and recognition of a repeatable process in nature. It is widely accepted as a statement of fact and a universal truth. Scientific laws do not need complex external proofs. They are accepted at face value because they have always been observed to be true. A miracle is an event which is inexplicable by the laws of nature.
A scientific law is a general principle that describes processes and is backed up by observational data and experimental results. These laws can generally be proved to one degree or another and all can be disproved by experimental or observational results that are counter to the law.
A miracle contradicts natural, scientific laws
Ok, I can accept that.
atheists typically scoff at the suggestion that miracles have ever occurred.
I do. If you saw the quality of today’s ‘miracles’, I am sure you would too ;).
What scientific laws does atheism break?
None? Science does not deal at all with the supernatural. I thought we already went over this.
The laws of conservation are basic laws in physics that state which processes can or cannot occur in nature.
No, this is a very limited (and false) representation of the laws.
This law says neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.
In a closed system. Creationists always seem to forget this part.
If matter and energy cannot be created, how did they originate?
Where did the entire physical universe come from?
Have you not answered the question already? If matter and energy cannot be created, when why think that they originate? The answer to that question is something that we will always disagree upon, so I will point out something else. Our understanding of science is not complete. Right now, we cannot model what preceded the universe because the laws of physics break down just before the big bang. That includes the laws of conservation. Will there be some point in the future that we understand the new physics involved prior to and just after the big bang? Most likely. Do I think that it is ok to just say ‘god did it’ in the mean time? No.
Today, virtually all scientists accept the Big Bang theory which says the entire universe came into existence at a particular point in time when all of the galaxies, stars and planets were formed.
Is the author purposely trying to mislead the audience with this statement?
If the universe has always existed, it would now be uniform in temperature, suffering what is known as heat death.
The universe has only existed for 13.7 billion years or so.
Everything which has a beginning has a cause. The universe has a beginning; therefore, the universe has a cause.
The universe has a beginning, yes, but does the singularity that spawned the universe have a beginning? Science is currently silent on this matter. If someone wants to believe that it does, then fine, but I see no reason to decide either way.
Since God is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time and is independent and outside of time. He is not limited by the time dimension he created, so he has no beginning in time.
Actually, the universe was spawned from a singularity. Time did not exist before the universe, therefore the singularity is also outside of time and has no beginning. Ergo no God is necessary according to the author’s reasoning.
There is not even one generally accepted scientific theory on the origin of matter and energy.
As I already pointed out, science does not yet have the answers to all the questions, and it never will. If someone wants to believe in a god because of this, then fine, but do not think that it is evidence or proof of a god anymore than the existence of lightening, fire, floods etc were 1000 years ago.