The Case for Theism

[genkaus]

I don't have to exclude possibilites that aren't in evidence.

You have to if the evidence supports them as well.

In your eyes I was 'proved wrong' before the case began. I know you love your own opinion but we already know your opinion in this case. I realize it may be a punch to your ego but I'm not attempting to convince you of anything.

When you were proven wrong, what's my opinion or who you are trying to convince are all irrelevant. All that matters is that your facts equally support all the other theories as well and therefore cannot be considered evidence for your theism.

The three facts I've stated thus far
1. The existence of the universe
2. The existence of life
3. The existence of sentient life

These facts are not what one would predict if atheism is true.

Why not? These facts are necessary for atheism to exist - let alone be true.

No one would say I believe a Creator of the universe doesn't exist, therefore I predict the existence of a universe, the existence of life and the existence of sentient life.

No, but we could say - since I believe in eternal universe, I predict existence of universe, of life and of sentience. Or same argument for multiverse.

Those are facts atheism has to explain away or offer counter theories of how such came about in support of their belief God doesn't exist.

Not unless your god-theory is validated first.

Counter theories don't cut the mustard. The only theory allowed in a court of law is the one theory the case is about.

Wrong. Any counter-theories that explain the facts are admissible in the court of law. If the case is about proving the theory that the defendant committed the crime, then any alternate theory that points to other murderers or to natural causes is admissible.

Clearly, you know as little about law as you know about science or philosophy.

I can't offer unproven theories in favor of my theory.

And yet that is exactly what you do.

If I were to go to a judge and say your Honor I plan to introduce a theory in favor of my theory there is no God it would be inadmissible.

It would - if it fit the facts.

Now in closing arguments if you think the existence of life, or the existence of the universe or sentient life somehow supports your belief there is no God have at it. Or by all means submit counter facts that you think support your case, that would be extremely refreshing.

Don't have to. The prosecution hasn't met its burden of proof. There are other theories that explain the facts just as well - or better. Its not my burden to disprove your theory but yours to prove it. And you have failed to do so spectacularly.

This only serves to illustrate a point I have made. Atheists typically claim they are led by facts to the conclusion there is no God.

But given that it is an unproven assertion to begin with - there is no reason for them to justify that position.

Its not true, they are led by theories that comport with their beliefs and they're willing to offer theories in defense of their belief even if in fact they don't actually believe the theory they are offering is true!

And if those theories explain the facts better that yours, then it doesn't matter if they personally believe in it, it'd still make those theories more valid than yours.

It would appear atheists believe God doesn't exist based on the fact its possible God doesn't exist. In other words its a faith proposition. But prove me wrong offer facts!

Don't have to. Your own given facts support other theories which means your proposition hasn't been proven in the first place for me to disprove it.

Since I am claiming God created the universe, life and sentient life it's obvious those facts are relevant to the case.

Except, since those very facts equally support other theories, that makes them inconclusive.