The Case for Theism

[Mister Agenda]

Lets attempt to limit this discussion to known facts. If the day comes the existence of other universes is a fact then we can consider it. Since life does exist as does the universe thats what the debate is about.

Hi, Drew, pleased to meet you.

If we're going to limit ourselves to known facts, fine tuning can't enter into the debate. That the physical constants could be different is a thought exercise, a 'what if'. For all we know, those are the only contants possible for a universe. The weak anthropic principle allows us to predict that there are no conditions in the universe that would preclude our existence, because we are here...and that is ALL it lets us say for a fact.

Do you just 'lack belief' in the existence of Santa Claus or toothfaires? Or are you fairly certain they don't exist since you put them in the same category as God?

Yes, I can't prove Santa or toothfairies don't exist, especially if they had defenders willing to do what apologists do for God: come up with ad hoc explanations for why they exist despite a lack of evidence for them. I don't believe in them, I don't 'anti-believe' in them. I do assign their likelihood a very low probability, but I could be mistaken. I don't insist that they don't exist, I insist that believing that they do isn't a rational belief in the sense of it being based on sound reasoning. It could be a rational belief in the sense that in some societies it can be dangerous not to hold that some particular proposed supernatural being actually exists.

I don't have faith in God, I believe God exists due to evidence in favor of that belief as well as lack of evidence of some other mechanism that can account for our existence.

So you believe in God partly because of the fallacy of argument from ignorance (if you don't have an explanation, mine is more likely to be right)? I don't believe in God because of lack of evidence in favor of belief and because I've yet to hear an argument for the existence of God that wasn't either fallacious or based on unsound premises. As the definition of evidence suggests that it should be persuasive to a skeptic, I'm interested in finding out what evidence persuaded you to stop being an atheist...I assume you were an atheist, as you don't need evidence to convince you to believe what you already believe. Otherwise, you're merely a theist who continues to believe what you already believed and also believes that your belief is, in addition, justified by some sort of evidence. (Whew!)

My understanding is an agnostic claims there isn't enough evidence pro or con to beileve God exists. I actually loathe that position. Its like people who check undecided on a survey. Why bother? Its my opinion we owe our existence to a Creator but I could be wrong.

A weak agnostic only claims they don't have enough evidence to know if God exists, a strong agnostic claims such evidence isn't possible, at least in this life. They're talking about what they don't know, not what they don't believe. An agnostic theist doesn't know but believes anyway; and an agnostic atheist doesn't know and doesn't believe. It's my opinion that we don't owe our existence to a Creator, but I could be wrong.