The Case for Theism

[genkaus]

Your counter arguments couldn't demolish a paper bag.

Then your arguments must be weaker than a paper bag.

All you have done in rebuttal is offer alternate theories few of which if any you actually subscribe to yourself and most cases conflict with each other.

And shown why your argument is invalid and assumes facts not in evidence.

I don't get how you think that people who don't have a dog in this hunt, who are just impartial and are neither comitted theists or atheists are going to be persuaded that mindless, lifeless forces minus design or intent can cause something totally unlike itself to exist based solely on some theories none of which you'll commit to saying you believe is true.

I don't have to persuade them of anything but that your position is bullshit. Which is done by showing your position to be bullshit.

I can understand why such arguments would be persuasive to someone already 100% committed to the atheist narrative such as yourself for example.

Except, my atheism isn't based on these arguments.s

These same arguments you offer could be applied to something know to have been intentionally created by a designer.

No, they can't.

Suppose a laptop computer materialized in the lab of some scientists 200 years ago. No one knows how it got there and no one is familiar with the manufacturing techniques of our time. 100 scientists look at it and just based on observation, turning it on, looking at the symmetry 70 of them conclude the object was created intentionally by a designer. They offer facts to support that conclusion.

1. The fact it exists
2. The fact it is complex
3. The fact it operates in a specfic manner
4. The fact the individual parts work in unison to achieve a specific result.

Except, 200 years ago, the last two facts would not be known. And going simply on the first two, the conclusion of intelligent design would be invalid.

On the other hand a group of people disagree and believe the laptop was caused without plan or intent by mindless processes that didnt' intend to cause a laptop to exist. What do they offer in support of their contention?

1. Maybe it always existed (of course they don't actually believe that but the fact its a possibility that supports the conclusion already arrived at is good enough for them.

Given that it materialized in the lab, we know for a fact that that isn't true.

2. You can't prove its complex because maybe if laptops exist they have to be the way they are. Or if you don't like that counter theory we have another one up our sleeve this is one of an infinitude of laptops created by some unknown process and given enough time and chances one of them was bound to start up and say Windows 7 starting.

If you have only one laptop, sure.

3. You can't say it operates in a specific manner unless you have all laptops that ever existed or will ever exist to compare it to.
4. See two and three.

The point here is all your counter arguments could be applied equally to things known to have been designed and engineered by a sentient being.

Exactly.

You know they are designed not because of some stupid, inane facts like "they exist", "they are complex" and so on - you know that because you know about how they are created and you can compare them to other laptops in existence. If there was only one laptop known in the manner you presented, then it would be irrational to conclude a designer simply from the facts known. Unless you can show all those extra facts to be true about the universe, it is irrational to assume that it was created.