The Case for Theism

[genkaus]

Is this an example of the brilliant logic you allegedly refuted my arguments with?

No, this is an example of standard logic I refuted your nonsensical arguments with.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean a damn thing.

But the fact that philosophy disagrees with you means that you are wrong.

Good I hope this time you get around to making a case.

No need. I don't need to disprove that which is not proven in the first place.

You are under the delusion that because you say something, that makes it so. What are these other options you refer to? If you want to claim I am spouting a false dichotomy then man up and say something other than because I say so.

Let's see - from the previous thread - there was the multiverse hypothesis, the future time-traveler hypothesis, the naturalistic universe hypothesis, the causeless universe hypothesis and the eternal universe hypothesis - all of which have as much evidence as your god and some of which have much more. There! Multiple options provided and your failed false dichotomy stands established. Try not to repeat it again.

Of course, but usually the first step on the road to that end is to produce a dead body.

No, it isn't. The no body, no crime principle no longer applied. Thus, production of a body is no longer the first or even a necessary step in establishing death/murder/murderer.

What is natural mechanisms and how do they differ from happenstance or accident?

Natural mechanisms - meaning the logical progression of laws of nature in form of causal chain - as separated from accident or happenstance which is improbable or deviates from natural mechanism sufficiently to indicate a plan or design, but which is found out not to be the case. For example, if a man is found dead from old age or cancer or a stroke - that's a natural death. If he is found with a knife in the chest, but further examination indicates that he tripped and fell on it - that is accident or happenstance.

What natural mechanism causes the existence of a universe? Besides in the other thread you declared the universe didn't come into existence and therefore wouldn't be the consequence of anything.

Since you understand that I don't hold the position that the universe had a cause, you should also understand that this argument was simply to tear apart your analogy and not indicative of my actual belief.

Firstly, you'd have to ask those who do believe in a naturalistic cause of universe, though I guess there answer has something to do with the multiverse hypothesis.

Secondly, even the absence of knowledge of natural mechanism does not justify you jumping to the conclusion of a god. In pretty much the same way as even when coroner can't figure out the cause of death, he does not put murder in his report.

The weight of evidence is it began to exist (in the configuration we now observe) about 13 and half billion years ago. Assuming it was a singularity at one point that is nothing like a universe.

The key words here being "in the configuration we now observe". You may not like to think of the singularity as anything like the universe, but at the point if its existence (if that term could be applied in that manner), it was the universe.

You should be a stand up comedian...

And you can be the butt of my jokes. Everyone's laughing at you anyway.