This one would be a perfect example of Christian Apologist. He seems to hit all the marks.
1. Pretends to be a philosophical theist while actually knowing so little about philosophy.
2. Presupposes existence of god and argues in circles hoping no one would notice it.
3. Repeats the same arguments and mistakes over and over again despite the fact that they've already been shredded to bits.
4. Runs away from threads where he's been beaten (while pretending to have won) and starts a new thread with same old arguments.
Here are some:
No, it isn't. As a matter of fact, that inclusion is no only a non-explanation, it prevents you from looking for the correct one.
No, they aren't. As you have been corrected on this point before, you should know better.
And many more that contradict it.
As indicated many, many times before - false dichotomy. There are many other options available.
And here it is - setting up stupid strawmen against atheists.
Really? You are starting with this pathetic argument?
Well, since you invoked a murder analogy, I'll respond in kind.
A dead body, by itself, is not sufficient evidentiary cause to raise the existence of a murderer. You first have to establish cause of death. If the death could not have been caused by natural mechanisms and indicative of intention behind it, then you have cause to suspect murderer. If it was not caused naturally, but there was no indication of intention, then it is happenstance or accident. Then there is the third option - where it is the consequence of natural mechanisms. In fact, that third option is what a coroner starts with unless he can see evidence to the contrary.
Similarly, the default position for us with regards to the universe would be that it is the consequence of natural mechanisms unless there is indication of the supernatural. And in that case our options might be if it happened by plan or by happenstance.
But, this analogy is not perfect. After all, humanity has seen many dead bodies in past and they typically have things in common. Such as the person was born and alive before his death and that something happens that causes the live body to become dead body. We start with the assumption that it is a dead body and not simply a non-functioning human body because we've never seen otherwise. Ofcourse, once I finish my human cloning technology to create multiple non-functioning clones, this would go out the window - but the assumption is valid for now.
The same is not true for the universe. We've neither seen nor known any other universes to compare it to. So we cannot even say that it had a cause or that it didn't always exist. If never-alive bodies were available in this world, then your so called "dead" body wouldn't even be evidentiary cause to indicate death - let alone murder and let alone a murderer.
1. Pretends to be a philosophical theist while actually knowing so little about philosophy.
2. Presupposes existence of god and argues in circles hoping no one would notice it.
3. Repeats the same arguments and mistakes over and over again despite the fact that they've already been shredded to bits.
4. Runs away from threads where he's been beaten (while pretending to have won) and starts a new thread with same old arguments.
Here are some:
(March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: It's because in part it's the best explanation for why we find ourselves alive and in a universe that allows our existence.
No, it isn't. As a matter of fact, that inclusion is no only a non-explanation, it prevents you from looking for the correct one.
(March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: It's an opinion regarding the most basic philosophical questions people have asked.
No, they aren't. As you have been corrected on this point before, you should know better.
(March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: First because there are facts (evidence) that supports that belief.
And many more that contradict it.
(March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Secondly if I were to reject the belief that God created the universe and humans I would have to be persuaded that mindless lifeless forces somehow coughed a universe into existence and without plan or intent caused the right conditions for life to occur.
As indicated many, many times before - false dichotomy. There are many other options available.
(March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: I know most atheists prefer we just reject God first and then take it on faith that that our existence was caused by naturalistic forces that didn't intend our existence and that the universe also just came into existence for no particular reason.
And here it is - setting up stupid strawmen against atheists.
(March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: 1. The fact the universe exists
That might seem like a paltry fact in support of theism. Suppose I was trying a case for murder, the first line of evidence I would produce is a dead body. After all, I couldn't accuse anyone of murder if there was no one deceased. If the universe didn't exist there would be no reason to invoke the existence of God. Moreover if a universe didn't exist there would in fact be as atheists claim no evidence God exists. In order for anyone to even think God exists a place for humans to exist must exist. There are certain facts that must be true for anyone to think God exists. For humans to have any reason to think God might exist, we must have a place that allows us to live. There are in fact several facts and conditions that must be true in order for there to be any reason to think the existence of a Creator is true. None of those facts needs to be true for atheism to be true. Atheism doesn't require the existence of a universe to believe atheism is true. If the universe didn't exist atheism might still be false (God might exist but not have created the universe) but there would be no evidentiary reason to raise the existence of God.
Really? You are starting with this pathetic argument?
Well, since you invoked a murder analogy, I'll respond in kind.
A dead body, by itself, is not sufficient evidentiary cause to raise the existence of a murderer. You first have to establish cause of death. If the death could not have been caused by natural mechanisms and indicative of intention behind it, then you have cause to suspect murderer. If it was not caused naturally, but there was no indication of intention, then it is happenstance or accident. Then there is the third option - where it is the consequence of natural mechanisms. In fact, that third option is what a coroner starts with unless he can see evidence to the contrary.
Similarly, the default position for us with regards to the universe would be that it is the consequence of natural mechanisms unless there is indication of the supernatural. And in that case our options might be if it happened by plan or by happenstance.
But, this analogy is not perfect. After all, humanity has seen many dead bodies in past and they typically have things in common. Such as the person was born and alive before his death and that something happens that causes the live body to become dead body. We start with the assumption that it is a dead body and not simply a non-functioning human body because we've never seen otherwise. Ofcourse, once I finish my human cloning technology to create multiple non-functioning clones, this would go out the window - but the assumption is valid for now.
The same is not true for the universe. We've neither seen nor known any other universes to compare it to. So we cannot even say that it had a cause or that it didn't always exist. If never-alive bodies were available in this world, then your so called "dead" body wouldn't even be evidentiary cause to indicate death - let alone murder and let alone a murderer.
