There is a reason most sane lucid adults who don't believe in Fairies, Santa Claus, Invisible pink elephants do believe in a Creator of the universe and humans. It's not just because folks are brought up to believe in the existence of God, there are plenty of beliefs folks are taught as children that they later reject. It's because in part it's the best explanation for why we find ourselves alive and in a universe that allows our existence.
Theism to me is a belief and an opinion, I don't claim it's a fact. It's an opinion regarding the most basic philosophical questions people have asked. Why is there a universe? Why is there something rather than nothing? How did our existence come about? And perhaps the most puzzling question, is our existence the result of planning and design or was it the result of happenstance? This is in essence the question of theism as opposed to atheism. I know atheists are very sensitive about how atheism is defined. Most define it as nothing more than a 'lack of belief in the existence of God' they prefer this definition because then they can insist that only the theist has a burden of evidence. The dictionary definition of atheism is not or without God(s). Just as asexual means reproduction without sex atheism means without God. What without God? The universe and humans of course. Regardless of which definition atheists prefer you can ask anyone who calls them self an atheist do you believe we owe the existence of the universe and human life to a personal transcendent Creator of great power and invariably they answer no. They don't merely lack belief that a transcendent Creator of great power caused the universe and humans to exist, they don't believe such was the case.
There are two primary reasons I am a theist. First because there are facts (evidence) that supports that belief. Secondly if I were to reject the belief that God created the universe and humans I would have to be persuaded that mindless lifeless forces somehow coughed a universe into existence and without plan or intent caused the right conditions for life to occur. I'd have to believe that life and mind without plan or intent emerged from something totally unlike itself, mindless lifeless forces. I know most atheists prefer we just reject God first and then take it on faith that that our existence was caused by naturalistic forces that didn't intend our existence and that the universe also just came into existence for no particular reason. We should just assume that natural forces did it somehow. I'll leave it to atheists to persuade me such did happen or such could happen. After all we're not supposed to just take things on faith.
One of the chief objections to theism cited by atheists is they claim there is no evidence in favor of theism. I am often re-assured that they are very open minded and would be happy to evaluate any such evidence if there was any. I agree that if indeed there is no evidence in favor of a claim that is a valid reason to decline belief in such a claim (although it by no means disproves such a claim). There is often confusion about what evidence is and what proof is. Evidence are facts or objects that support a conclusion. For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is evidence that supports the conclusion the deceased was murdered. Typically the knife and pictures of the knife in the back of the deceased would be entered into evidence. A lot of evidence is circumstantial evidence.
From Wikipedia
Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.
On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).
From free dictionary.com
One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence.
I will present several lines of evidence that support the belief in theism. They don't prove theism is true, they merely provide good reason to think it's true. I'm not going to be making any 'God of the gaps' arguments nor am I going to offer any hypothetical scenarios or cite the mere possibility of something being true as evidence theism is true.
The first line of evidence is.
1. The fact the universe exists
That might seem like a paltry fact in support of theism. Suppose I was trying a case for murder, the first line of evidence I would produce is a dead body. After all, I couldn't accuse anyone of murder if there was no one deceased. If the universe didn't exist there would be no reason to invoke the existence of God. Moreover if a universe didn't exist there would in fact be as atheists claim no evidence God exists. In order for anyone to even think God exists a place for humans to exist must exist. There are certain facts that must be true for anyone to think God exists. For humans to have any reason to think God might exist, we must have a place that allows us to live. There are in fact several facts and conditions that must be true in order for there to be any reason to think the existence of a Creator is true. None of those facts needs to be true for atheism to be true. Atheism doesn't require the existence of a universe to believe atheism is true. If the universe didn't exist atheism might still be false (God might exist but not have created the universe) but there would be no evidentiary reason to raise the existence of God. Additional lines of evidence soon to follow...
Theism to me is a belief and an opinion, I don't claim it's a fact. It's an opinion regarding the most basic philosophical questions people have asked. Why is there a universe? Why is there something rather than nothing? How did our existence come about? And perhaps the most puzzling question, is our existence the result of planning and design or was it the result of happenstance? This is in essence the question of theism as opposed to atheism. I know atheists are very sensitive about how atheism is defined. Most define it as nothing more than a 'lack of belief in the existence of God' they prefer this definition because then they can insist that only the theist has a burden of evidence. The dictionary definition of atheism is not or without God(s). Just as asexual means reproduction without sex atheism means without God. What without God? The universe and humans of course. Regardless of which definition atheists prefer you can ask anyone who calls them self an atheist do you believe we owe the existence of the universe and human life to a personal transcendent Creator of great power and invariably they answer no. They don't merely lack belief that a transcendent Creator of great power caused the universe and humans to exist, they don't believe such was the case.
There are two primary reasons I am a theist. First because there are facts (evidence) that supports that belief. Secondly if I were to reject the belief that God created the universe and humans I would have to be persuaded that mindless lifeless forces somehow coughed a universe into existence and without plan or intent caused the right conditions for life to occur. I'd have to believe that life and mind without plan or intent emerged from something totally unlike itself, mindless lifeless forces. I know most atheists prefer we just reject God first and then take it on faith that that our existence was caused by naturalistic forces that didn't intend our existence and that the universe also just came into existence for no particular reason. We should just assume that natural forces did it somehow. I'll leave it to atheists to persuade me such did happen or such could happen. After all we're not supposed to just take things on faith.
One of the chief objections to theism cited by atheists is they claim there is no evidence in favor of theism. I am often re-assured that they are very open minded and would be happy to evaluate any such evidence if there was any. I agree that if indeed there is no evidence in favor of a claim that is a valid reason to decline belief in such a claim (although it by no means disproves such a claim). There is often confusion about what evidence is and what proof is. Evidence are facts or objects that support a conclusion. For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is evidence that supports the conclusion the deceased was murdered. Typically the knife and pictures of the knife in the back of the deceased would be entered into evidence. A lot of evidence is circumstantial evidence.
From Wikipedia
Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.
On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).
From free dictionary.com
One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence.
I will present several lines of evidence that support the belief in theism. They don't prove theism is true, they merely provide good reason to think it's true. I'm not going to be making any 'God of the gaps' arguments nor am I going to offer any hypothetical scenarios or cite the mere possibility of something being true as evidence theism is true.
The first line of evidence is.
1. The fact the universe exists
That might seem like a paltry fact in support of theism. Suppose I was trying a case for murder, the first line of evidence I would produce is a dead body. After all, I couldn't accuse anyone of murder if there was no one deceased. If the universe didn't exist there would be no reason to invoke the existence of God. Moreover if a universe didn't exist there would in fact be as atheists claim no evidence God exists. In order for anyone to even think God exists a place for humans to exist must exist. There are certain facts that must be true for anyone to think God exists. For humans to have any reason to think God might exist, we must have a place that allows us to live. There are in fact several facts and conditions that must be true in order for there to be any reason to think the existence of a Creator is true. None of those facts needs to be true for atheism to be true. Atheism doesn't require the existence of a universe to believe atheism is true. If the universe didn't exist atheism might still be false (God might exist but not have created the universe) but there would be no evidentiary reason to raise the existence of God. Additional lines of evidence soon to follow...
