The Case for Theism

[Angrboda]

Fact. It is rational to believe the explanation which, on the basis of facts and logic, has the highest probability of being true.

Fact. In order to determine whether a specific explanation is "the most probably true explanation," one must compare it's probability to that of all other possible explanations.

Fact. Presenting an explanation as the most probable when you've not compared it to the probability of all relevant explanations is a misapplication of the law of the excluded middle (false dichotomy) and makes it an invalid deduction.

Fact. It is not rational to believe propositions on the basis of invalid deductions, therefore if you attempt to assert that your explanation is the most probable on that account, you are being irrational, and agreeing with your conclusions is irrational.

---

These are all facts, all of which you've attempted to weasel out of without just cause. Furthermore, your attempt to disarm them with irrelevant objections is strong prima facie evidence that you recognize them as a problem, and what they mean for your argument, and so you are likely trying to explain them away because they are damaging to your case, not because they are improper. Nothing more.



(And for what it's worth, panspermia, Penrose's CCC model, and the multiverse have all been entered into evidence. Your attempt to play the role of judge in determining the admissibility and form of these submissions is a rank bit of hypocrisy given your whining about other people trying to play judge, jury, and executioner.)

At this point, why you're still here is something of a mystery. You would have to be either incredibly stupid or incredibly deluded to think you have a chance of persuading an appreciable number of people at this point. Which suggests my earlier hypothesis that you are simply "practicing" your arguments here. I'm open to alternative explanations, as I'm not given to willfully committing fallacies in the service of prior held beliefs like you appear to be. (ETA: It's possible you're simply another "Liar for Christ," who is trying to persuade a select group of people who for one reason or another may be vulnerable to being swayed by arguments that are superficially or emotionally appealing, but not logically or scientifically valid. Your apparent unwillingness to disclose your theological beliefs, constantly hiding behind the "philosophical theist" label might count as evidence for that hypothesis.)

If you had some positive evidence that a god designed and created the universe (like a galaxy sized hand, for example), I'm all ears, but so far you've given all indications that you aren't actually going to present anything more compelling than an argument from ignorance. What's even more sad is you're obviously clueless about the actual problems with your greater argument (predicted, but not yet seen). I can only suspect that you will attempt to exclude those objections in the same way you've attempted to exclude objections so far, with a mixture of bullshit, hand-waving, and rhetorical tap-dancing.