"1. We are speculating. There may never be enough information. We are not producing a legal document."
My dear sir. That is true. And that is my point.
"2. If there is a Creator we will never now how It Created because this occurred before the laws of science were fixed."
A statement based on what? Is it pure speculation.
"and an in depth understanding of the alternative - I will likely be dead before this happens, if it ever happens. I need to speculate now."
Precisely, so you and I (or anybody else) is not in a position to make a call on the probability favouring a creator that you claim.
"3. Theists do have a mortgage on the certainty of ignorance, but both sides are hypothesising their tits off regarding absolute beginning, the nature of life, consciousness and sentience. Uncertainty good. Uncertainty my friend."
I agree that some on the non-theist side are stuck in a rut of unfounded assumptions.
But I think that I can say that many atheists especially those with a scientific bent don't fall into the trap of confusing speculation with more solidly founded explanations - and even in the later case admit that they could still be wrong.
I have not heard too many theists say that they could be wrong, but prefer to hang onto their cherished faith based beliefs, no matter what. That is the difference.
"4. There may not be a Creator. I may not exist. Who said that? "
You may not exist? OK. I think that you may have said that, but can't be sure.
"Good rational evidence exists everywhere and nowhere. It is in the eye of the beholder."
I disagree. Good rational evidence does not depend on the eye of the beholder. It is there for all see and can be collaborated by as many people as there are who choose to investigate. If just one person refutes a proposal through rational evidence then that proposal for which evidence is sought is rejected.
Such is the power and confidence of rational evidence.
