The Case for Theism

[pocaracas]

I'm just going to say your whole post is one big "god of the gaps" argument, while trying to shift the burden of proof to "naturalism".
And I'm also going to elaborate a bit on what Luke said, about the history of the god of the gaps argument.

No my whole case was built in 5 indisputable facts, no God in the gaps necessary.

5 facts and one conclusion of squeezing a god to explain those facts.

Some hundreds of years ago, people believed that almost everything in the world was the product of some god. The spirit world, where each animal, plant, mountain, cloud, moon, sun has a spirit or is itself a god... only humans are subject to those spirits.

You are aware that theists disabused folks of such notions long before scientists did right?

That's why I still hear people claiming St. Peter governs the weather.
The names changed... but the belief is the same.

As science establishes these "rules of Nature", the god-did-it explanation shrinks in scope. What was once explained by the existence of a god, became explained by simple mindless forces. The god explanation shrank into the gaps in the scientific explanation of the world.

The premise is.

1. A mysterious phenomena exists
2. Scientists examine the phenomena and explain how it works by an appeal to the laws of nature
3. The laws of physics explains how something functions without appealing to the existnece of a Creator.
4. Therefore a Creator doesn't exist

Is that your presmise?

no.
Had you read what I wrote, you'd seen that it's more like:
1. a long time ago, people believed god(s) were the explanation for every natural phenomena.
2. As science evolves, natural phenomena became understood and god(s) was(were) removed from these explanations.
3.1 There are still some gaps in scientific knowledge.
3.2 There are still some people claiming the god explanation for those unexplained phenomena.
5. If the god explanation turned out to be invalid for a huge number of other phenomena, why should I uphold that explanation for the remaining unexplained phenomena?

And those are the gaps you examine here:
- Where/how/why did the universe come into being?
- How did life on Earth come into being?
- How did intelligence evolve?

You're not quoting me because you know I never said that.

I did say
1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact sentient life exists.

I merely stated the fact of their existence.

Oh, but you stated something else, at the end:

The theist claim is that the universe and the attendant laws of nature were not the result of some mindless process that fortuitously got it right but instead was the product of planning and design. Theism offers an explanation that accounts for our existence and the existence of the universe, why sentient life exists and why the conditions and characteristics necessary for such to obtain resulted.

And this deals with the questions I listed.