(1) Theological explanations being replaced by atheistic ones don't provide a reason to not believe in God. The negative fails to establish a clear link between natural explanations in the past to not believing in God.

(2) The argument is largely a straw man, since it's assuming certain things attributed to as theistic arguments. On balance, there are some things that can only be explained by God (e.g. see my modal ontological argument).

Therefore, the argument fails to actually demonstrate the negative position - it only serves to justify personal beliefs.

== Case ==

The modal ontological argument, developed by various logicians and philosophers, defines God as a being with "necessary existence." From this, we can logically conclude that God exists via the following format.

First, I shall define what "necessary existence" means. If A is "necessarily existent," then A exists in all possible worlds. A "possible world" is a hypothetical world that illustrates how the universe could have been. So, if A is "necessary," then it is impossible for the universe to be without A, assuming A.

Now, God, by definition, is "necessary." That means, if God is not necessary, then God necessarily does not exist, i.e. it is impossible for God to exist. From this, we gain the following premise:

(P1) If God is not necessary, then it is impossible for God to exist

From modus tollens, we can infer that: if God's existence is possible, God's existence is necessary, i.e. God necessarily exists. Therefore:

(P2) If it is logically possible for God to exist, then God exists.

It is logically possible for God to exist. Under "subjunctive possibility," if A entails no logical contradiction, then A is logically possible. Or, via Sankara's razor, if A can be conceived of without contradiction, then A exists in some possible world.

(P3) It is logically possible for God to exist

The conclusion entails:

(C) .: God necessarily exists (2,3 modus ponens, 1,3 modus tollens)