The Case for Theism

[Drew_2013]

The trivial fact of life's existence is not sufficient to even establish that it had a cause.

I didn't say anything about a cause, I just stated its existence.

If the only known fact was that life exists then there would be no basis to assume that there was even a time when it didn't exist and therefore had to be caused or brought into existence.

Do you actually subscribe to this notion that life always existed?

Another underhanded attempt to sneak in arguments that have already been refuted. It has been established that the existence of universe is not sufficient grounds to raise the question of a cause of the universe

I have an idea...how about we stipulate that everything you say has in my opinion been refuted and everything I say has in your opinion been refuted so we can get on with our respective arguments.

Again - the fact that we are not aware of the natural mechanism for the cause of life is not evidence that there was anything unnatural about it. In pretty much the same way that if a coroner cannot figure out the cause of death does not automatically mean murder.

The point is people can decide for themselves whether the existence of the universe and the existence of life is best explained by mindless lifeless forces caused a universe and life to exist without any plan or intent or knowledge how to do so or whether the reason the universe and life exists is because it was planned and designed to occur. Your right in that we don't know for sure how life or the universe came to be and I'm not attempting to assert God into the gaps of our knowledge. I am citing the fact those two things exist regardless of how they came about. Its atheists who have to explain away those facts or propose some hypothetical (but naturalistic) reason why the universe and life exists. Your not going to suggest for some mysterious reason the universe and life had to exist?

On the other hand, theists haven't been able to provide ay evidence that cannot be refuted by a little bit of logic and a dose of reality. The reason why their position is marginalized as a faith proposition is because that is precisely what it is. If you were able to present some actual evidence, then you might have a case, but as of now, you have nothing.

Evidence are simply facts that comport with a belief. The weight of evidence and its merit isn't determined by those arguing a case. I don't know why that piece of logic and reality eludes you. If you were to debate a subject or try a case, you don't also get to sit in the judges chair and decide what is and isn't evidence and then also get to sit in the juries seat and decide the merit of the case as well as sit in opposing counsels chair and make your case.

[genkaus]

I didn't say anything about a cause, I just stated its existence.

Actually, you did say something about a cause. You said that the simple fact of its existence is sufficient grounds to assume a cause - it isn't.

Do you actually subscribe to this notion that life always existed?

No, but that's irrelevant. It doesn't make it any less of a valid argument against yours.

I have an idea...how about we stipulate that everything you say has in my opinion been refuted and everything I say has in your opinion been refuted so we can get on with our respective arguments.

Why would I stipulate to such blatant lies. I have refuted everything you've said because I've provided arguments against your statements. You, on the other hand, have failed to address many of my arguments, argued with non-arguments like "I never said that" (while saying the same thing a few spaces below) or "you don't believe it either" (as if that would affect the validity of an argument). And then you go on to pretend that none of your arguments have been addressed and repeat them ad nauseum. Why would you even expect me to participate in this charade?

The point is people can decide for themselves whether the existence of the universe and the existence of life is best explained by mindless lifeless forces caused a universe and life to exist without any plan or intent or knowledge how to do so or whether the reason the universe and life exists is because it was planned and designed to occur.

And here we go again. Given that you've completely failed to establish that universe even had a cause or that it came to exist, failed to even argue that life had a cause and failed to acknowledge the inherent false dichotomy you are committing once again - this statement should be altered to "people can decide for themselves if the universe came into existence or it always existed and it it is former, then if there is any reason to assume that causation is applicable beyond the universe and if it is then if there is any reason to assume an intelligence rather than natural mechanism. Similarly, with life - if it came into existence via naturalistic means or if it necessarily required an intelligence".

Your right in that we don't know for sure how life or the universe came to be and I'm not attempting to assert God into the gaps of our knowledge.

That is precisely what you are attempting if you assert things like "the universe came to be" without having established them as fact first.

I am citing the fact those two things exist regardless of how they came about.

And as I cited, their existence gives you no reason to presume a cause. So, the fact that they exist is not sufficient to assume that either "came about".

Its atheists who have to explain away those facts or propose some hypothetical (but naturalistic) reason why the universe and life exists. Your not going to suggest for some mysterious reason the universe and life had to exist?

Atheists don't have to explain anything because they are not proposing anything simply by being atheists. Different atheists may propose different hypotheticals - but even that is not the same for all. The reason why they don't have to explain anything is because they don't make unjustified assumptions like "there has to be a reason for the universe's and life's existence" - and then come up with half-assed explanations like god.

Evidence are simply facts that comport with a belief. The weight of evidence and its merit isn't determined by those arguing a case. I don't know why that piece of logic and reality eludes you. If you were to debate a subject or try a case, you don't also get to sit in the judges chair and decide what is and isn't evidence and then also get to sit in the juries seat and decide the merit of the case as well as sit in opposing counsels chair and make your case.

Why does this piece of of logic and reality elude you? I do get to make judgments about the validity and merit of evidence when debating a subject or when trying a case. If I don't make that determination, how would I know what evidence to include in my case or what arguments to offer against the opponent. That I'm not in the judges chair does not negate the fact that I'm making that determination. I'm looking at the evidence provided, seeing that all of it has been deemed irrelevant and therefore not actual evidence and pointing that out for everyone to see.

[EGross]

Well, we do have the .

Oh, no, I'm floating away....

Damn you theory!!!!!hock:

[i win you lose.com]

So can someone explain the probability of natural selection creating life verses "Borel's Law of mathematical probability."?

[genkaus]

So can someone explain the probability of natural selection creating life verses "Borel's Law of mathematical probability."?

The probability of natural selection creating life is zero because natural selection does not create life.

[i win you lose.com]

So can someone explain the probability of natural selection creating life verses "Borel's Law of mathematical probability."?

The probability of natural selection creating life is zero because natural selection does not create life.

Okay so let's say the probability of life starting On its own vs. "Borel's Law of mathematical probability." 

[genkaus]

Okay so let's say the probability of life starting On its own vs. "Borel's Law of mathematical probability." 

What does life starting on its own even mean?

[i win you lose.com]

Lol... single celled organisms coming into existence through natural selective processes

[genkaus]

Lol... single celled organisms coming into existence through natural selective processes

That doesn't make any sense. Selection implies picking from a pre-existing set. Natural selective processes wouldn't bring anything into existence, they'd simply select pre-existing objects.

[i win you lose.com]

so how do you suppose life begin on earth?