The Case for Theism

[Drew_2013]

Absolutely, but if Santa were defended by an apologist, the definition would be changed to something like 'a non-detectable being who sometimes delivers presents on Christmas in an undetectable way, and is the reason why sometimes there are presents labeled 'from Santa' that no one knows the provenance of. After all, God used to be the guy who floods worlds and stops the sun and parts seas so his chosen people can have a shortcut; but look at him now.

What I attribute to the existence of God is the universe and humans. It may not be much to go on, but its not nothing.

OK, but you cited other's lack of an explanation as supporting yours, that's pretty much the essence of the fallacy, that if someone else doesn't know something, you're more likely to be right just because you have an explanation. Explanations have to stand or fall on their own merits.

Exactly people have to decide for themselves based on their own personal experience which explanation explains best.

Fair enough. I don't consider being an atheist to be a virtue...I consider being a rational/scientific skeptic to be a virtue, though, which is basically the idea that one's beliefs should be proportional to the evidence for them. I realize that taking that position doesn't universally lead to atheism.

If all atheists had such an even handed response the issue would just be a discussion up for debate likes who's the greatest QB in the NFL. Most atheists frame the question as if its a 'no brainer' fact there is no God, that belief in God is on par with belief in Santa Claus but when questioned they all scurry to the position that atheism is a mere lack of belief and therefore they have no burden of evidence.

A theory is made of facts, and explains them. The theory explains the fact of the evidence that the universe was once very small and rapidly got very big.

The problem is you can't use a theory to support yet another theory.

Thats assuming the laws of physics and nature are necessary.

I'm not assuming they're necessary. I'm just not assuming they're NOT necessary, which is what you have to do to assert that happenstance and intention as the only options.

I've been going round and round on this issue and I still think its special pleading to claim that there could be some other option besides design and happenstance. Secondly I think its a red herring because I don't believe the folks pining for some other option actually believe that the universe was caused by some circumstance that would be neither design or plan, they're just running interference to obfuscate the issue. I suspect your actual take on this is that mindless forces without plan or design caused the universe to exist and life is just the accidental by product or the laws of physics. I suspect this is exactly what most atheists think. So why hide and obfuscate. I don't raise objections I myself don't actually beileve in. Its seems disengenous some folks do.

Even supposing that if a universe exists it has to have the laws of nature we observe (which isn't a fact) according to atheism there was no who engineered and designed the universe to be as it is. If trees in our observation instead of falling down fell up then that would be a law of nature.

There is no 'according to atheism' any more than there is an 'according to theism'. And yes, we would observe trees falling up if that was a law of nature, although there's no good reason to suppose that could be a law of nature. With only one universe to observe it's hard to make valid claims that another universe could be wildly different from our own: our universe is the only one we know for sure is possible.

Why? On what basis should the laws of nature make sense? Why does nature seem to act as if it is compelled by a set or rules? Scientists have found these 'laws' of nature not because they projected them into nature but because they really do exist. I plan to submit that fact as another line of evidence. We'll have to disagree on the issue of according to theism/atheism. At minimal according to theism, the universe and humans were caused to exist by a transcendent being and according to atheism...not so.

Unless your suggesting that the laws of nature aren't just what we happen to observe but in fact they really are laws written into the fabric of nature but wouldn't that be rather antithetical to the philosophy of atheism?

There is no 'philosophy of atheism', just as there's no 'philosophy of theism'. They are both single-topic opinions. And you're conflating laws of nature with written laws. Laws of nature are descriptions of how the universe behaves in certain circumstances that are reliable.

Correct most atheists would opine the laws we observe are not some blueprint the universe had to follow but are just patterns of regularity we happen to observe...unless they are raising an objection for instance to the argument of fine tuning in which case they do raise the objection that maybe in fact the laws of nature do have to be as we observe them, not that they actually believe that... but just because they don't actually believe something is true that's no reason not to raise it as an objection anyway and will argue the objection should carry weight even though they themselves don't believe the objection. I call it bullshit but thats just me.

Because what except a transcendent agent could dictate how nature behaves?

Even if I could think of no alternative, you'd only be left with an argument from ignorance: 'you don't know so I must be right'.

No, they'd decide for themselves if I am right regardless of an alternative.

But I think you're unnecessarily multiplying entities, like invoking undetectable voltage fairies as an explanation for current. It is possible that you're necessarily multiplying entities--that there does have to be a transcendant agent to determine what a universe's laws must be, but I note that 'explanation' can be invoked just as readily to 'explain' why universes would have radically different laws if that turns out to be the case.

Most people think Occams razor just means the simpliest explanation is best. but one can subtract entities below necessity.

Not to mention if the universe being the way it is requires a transcendant agent, surely the transcendant agent being the way it is would require a more transcendant agent, unless you're going with special pleading; which wouldn't make you wrong, it just means that if you're right, it's by coincidence.

Again its another phoney objection, the atheist doesn't think there was a creator to a creator anymore than they think there was any creator. My answer is I have no idea how the Creator came into existence or if in fact the creator was created. But even if the creator did require a creator, theism is still true no? However we can go down this line of thinking both ways. What created the universe? The singularity...what created the singularity? Some other unknown phenomena. The problem is for us to get to this point in time, we'd have to cross and endless recession of events. How could we? On the other hand the atheist could say something always existed...now they have attributed a divine characteristic to nature. Some atheists promote the notion this universe came into existence uncaused out of nothing. Its appears thats out of vogue now. But of course they always claim its not magic. Our existence and that of the universe no matter how you slice it is problematic.

Oh, and as an alternative to a transcendant agent if universes must be much the same, I offer 1) the laws of the universe are a brute fact, much as a transendant agent would have to be; or 2) the laws of the universe are what they are because that's what they must be in the absence of forces dictating that they must be different, similar to the way virtual particles come into existence essentially because there's no law of nature that says they can't.

Almost like the belief at one time that nature abhors a vaccum.