Is there any *really* good defense of atheism that can account for all its difficulties?



1- Cosmological arguments



Basically, when it comes to the existence of the universe or conditioned beings, atheists have to hold either to (a) brute facts, which are literally worse than magic; or (b) that the necessary/unconditioned being responsible for the existence of the universe is itself physical/material and impersonal. But this faces severe problems, such as I) the universe, and every material being, appears to be contingent and in fact scientists often assume it is, II) the explanation for conditioned beings in terms of an unconditioned one can't be merely conceptual, but can't be scientific either (science seems to explain things in terms of conditioned beings and laws), so what could it be if not personal?, III) can't explain the order in the existence of contingent beings, as the theist can appeal to all teleological considerations here which strongly suggest purposeful creation, IV) metaphysical problems, such as material beings having parts which need to be conjoined, etc, V) the possession of all perfections by a necessary, unconditioned being, VI) avoiding necessitarianism/Spinozistic pantheism, etc etc.



2- General teleological arguments



They have to (a) deny final causes or (b) accept final causes. If they accept final causes, they probably have to hold some form of platonism to explain how final causes can be operative before they even exist. Then all objections against platonism would apply. If they deny final causes, they have to accept brute facts about the regularity of the laws of nature and even the mere existence/persistence in existence of things.



3- Fine-tuning



In sum, they have to (a) deny the fine-tuning, or (b) explain it by means of a multiverse or (c) explain it by some kind of necessity.



4- Arguments from eternal truths (Saint Augustine, Leibniz, etc)



Atheists have to (a) reject realism about universals, possibilia, propositions, mathematical objects and truths etc. or (b) accept realism but somehow ground it in either platonism, aristotelian realism, or something evwn more eccentric such as lewisian possible worlds. There are serious problems with all of these.



5- Qualia/consciousness



Presumably, most atheists will want to be materialists, but then they'll have to either accept some kind of eliminativism or reductionism. But then they'll have serious problems with the knowledge argument, the zombie argument, and so on. Otherwise, they'll have to settle for something like property dualism and will have to find a way to avoid epiphenomenalism and to explain how property dualism would be possible (some kind of emergentism). Or they'll have to be something even more eccentric, such as panpsychists. If they accept something like Nagel's view it becomes hard to resist certain teleological arguments, or certain arguments from reason.



6- Intentionality and reason in general



They'll have to either (a) accept that we have an immaterial mind/soul without its being created by God, or (b) somehow explain reason in material terms. a) seems entirely untenable without rejecting the principle of proportionate causality (and therefore accepting brute facts as well), and the idea of an immaterial soul would presumably already be anathema to the vast majority of atheists. If they take option (b) then they need to somehow account for I) our grasp and use of universal and determinate concepts, II) mental causation in terms of propositional content, III) under hylomorphism, our grasp of forms without our minds literally becoming the forms in question, IV) the psychological relevance of logical laws, V) self-reflexivity, or the capacity of our intellect to think of itself as thinking, VI) the reliability of our cognitive faculties under naturalism in a way that isn't self-defeating.



7- Libertarian free will



Granted, many atheists are compatibilists. But if they're incompatibilist libertarians, they'd have to somehow square it with materialism (which presumably most atheists accept). From what I've heard there have been some defenses of materialistic libertarian free will (Rescher), but it could be an additional worry.



8- Objective morality and axiology



If the atheist wants to maintain mechanistic naturalism (as most of them do), it becomes notoriously difficult to hold any sort of objective morality or axiology.



9- Religious experience



They have to hold that all religious experiences are illusory and not veridical experiences of God or a transcendent reality.



10- Miracles and supernatural phenomena



Of course, they have to hold that ALL claims of miracles and supernatural phenomena are ultimately false or explainable in natural ways.



I could just go on and on. A lot of these problems are presented deductively; the issues can also be presented inductively, however. Considering this, can atheism even be a tenable philosophical position? It seems like it faces so many problems in multiple fronts - philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, epistemology, action, ethics - it's even hard to take it as a viable alternative to anything.



Prove me wrong.