Lately I have been going through some of the basic arguments for the existence of God. I have thus far gone through four of them:
The Mechanical Argument for God
The Cosmological Argument for God
The Teleological Argument for God
The Entropic Argument for God
Today I am going to refute one of the major counter-criticisms to these arguments and show how the proponents of them unknowingly bolster the case for the existence of God.
There could not be anything without a cause (the Cosmological Argument). Whatever existed should have deteriorated into background radiation at a constant level (the Entropic Argument). And everything has been precisely fine-tuned for life in this universe (the Teleological Argument). There is very little disagreement about any of these points even among reductive materialists. This is why atheists rarely provide arguments for their positions -- instead they usually bring up Russell's teapot or Flying Spaghetti Monsters (both almost uniformly raised incorrectly) to distract from the absence of evidence in support of atheism.
Some atheists do, however, attempt to create counterarguments. One way atheists often seek to get around these inconvenient facts is by positing the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. This states that there are an infinite number of worlds such that all possible histories and futures exist. This is then combined with the anthropic principle, which states that only a universe observable by an intelligent observer would be observed and thus the fact that we are observing the universe makes its existence, however improbable, a mathematical certainty.
There are a number of problems with this argument. It shows the desperation among many to remove God through any mechanism possible, but even worse it is religion passed off as science. Those who adhere to the Many Worlds Interpretation do so with no empirical evidence (indeed, such evidence would be impossible). They really give the game away a bit -- the atheistic advocates of such an argument are willing to cast off any notion of being scientists, and instead have engaged in mental gymnastics to interpret the data in any way that they can conceive of to deny the existence of God.
But therein lies the irony -- they have not disproved God at all. In fact, a basic corollary of the anthropic principle is that God must exist. The Many Worlds Interpretation insists that any possible past and any possible future are both existent. The formation of a perfect being (God) who then sets out to create mankind is just such a possibility. The sacrifice of His perfect Son, Jesus Christ, is likewise such a possibility. The resurrection of this perfect Son is a possibility. As possibilities, then they are certainties in some universe under the Many Worlds Interpretation.
You can see the awkward position that this puts the atheist into. They attempt, through a non-disprovable hypothesis, to answer data that leads via Occam's Razor to the conclusion that God exists. This answer requires acceptance of a conclusion for which evidence not only is absent, but for which evidence is impossible. Then, assuming that they are correct, they will have only demonstrated that somewhere God exists.
To be clear, I don't ascribe to the Many Worlds Interpretation myself, and thus I do not think this is a conclusive proof of the existence of God. What I think it does show is that one of the only ways an atheist has of avoiding the evidence for God (which, despite was you might read or hear, is overwhelmingly in favor of His existence) is to prepare a different theory which, if true, even then proves the existence of God.