The Case for Theism

[Cyberman]

Panspermia doesn't necessarily rule out some intelligent agency for its propogation, but neither does it depend on one. That only applies to desperate creationist-style arguments.

[genkaus]

Refutation means to prove something is wrong. Could you restate how you refuted (proved wrong) the conclusion I have drawn from three lines of evidence thus far?

You really can't read, can you? I mean, it's just one simple sentence, representing one simple concept, a sentence that you quoted to boot and still you manage to get it wrong.

I don't have to refute the conclusion, I simply have to refute your argument for the conclusion. With your argument proven wrong, your conclusion stands invalidated. It might still be true, but then so could anything else with absolutely no evidence for it. And it is not my burden to prove it wrong once I've established your failure to prove it right.

1. The existence of the universe.

I assume you agree the universe does exist. How did you refute (prove wrong) the possibility a transcendent Creator caused it to exist?

By establishing that
a) Mere existence of something is not sufficient to prove that it had a cause. Given that we do not know of any other universes, we have no reason to assume that this one was caused, much less that it was caused by a transcendent being.
b) Other theories, such as eternal universe, multiverse, stable time loop universe, cyclical universe and causeless universe are all equally supported by and explain the fact of the universe existing. Evidence that supports everything is evidence for nothing.

2. The existence of life

How did you refute (prove wrong) the possibility a transcendent Creator caused it to exist?

Again, by establishing that
a) Mere existence of life is not sufficient to even establish that it was caused. You first have to establish that it did not exist at some point - a task made even more difficult if panspermia is considered.
b) Existence of life is better explained by alternate theories such as abiogenesis which actually have some other evidence to them.
c) Even setting aside the better theories, your god hypothesis is no better at explaining life than other hypotheses such as multiverse or eternal universe.

3. The existence of sentient life

How did you refute (prove wrong) the possibility a transcendent Creator caused it to exist?

Do I even need to repeat myself? Again, existence of sentient life is better explained through evolution and the simple fact of its existence is not sufficient to establish anything transcendent.

If you actually did prove that some cause other than God or at least proved it wasn't God who caused the existence of these things I will agree you have proved your case.

Your agreement is immaterial. I don't have to prove my case since I am not presenting any case. That is how burden of proof works - both in logic and in law. You are the one making a "Case for Theism" and failing miserably at it. All I have to do here is to point out all the ways you fail to make the case. All I have to show are all the other theories that equally or better support the evidence provided.

By the way, I asked you last time if in your mind its an irrefutable fact God doesn't exist or is it a belief God doesn't exist?

And I answered - it is a justified belief.

[Angrboda]

Hello Apophenia

You have said repeatedly your not an atheist...just what do you believe about the existence of the universe and life and what facts support your belief?

I think it's a profound mystery. I haven't found any proposed explanation for the existence of the universe that I find persuasive.

I'm inclined to take a somewhat Kantian approach, and think that the answer may be as much a result of conceptual inadequacy as evidentiary. In line with Kierkegaard's, "The supreme paradox of all thought is the attempt to discover something that thought cannot think," I think it's likely we don't have adequate concepts, philosophy or metaphysics to pose the question appropriately and answer it at this time. In ways, I'm reminded of Olbers' paradox, and the fact that many years from now, if we looked into the sky, we would see nothing, as well as some of the implications of Brane theory — all of which suggest that we may not even have access to the information we need for one reason or another. And it's entirely possible that, like the wave / particle duality, we simply aren't equipped to think intuitively about such things. But then, cosmology and physics aren't my field, so this is purely the musings of a layman.

I do have religious opinions and such, but in addition to being somewhat personal and private, they are likely not of interest or benefit to anyone else, and don't have any real accepted evidentiary value. I accept the evolutionary explanation for the evidence about the diversity, form, and pattern of life, while acknowledging that abiogenesis still has no adequate theory at this time. (I'm also a philosopher, specializing in cognitive science and philosophy of mind, and I have my own, unproven, physicalist model for the phenomena typically referred to as consciousness. It's certainly speculative, but my current thinking is that there is nothing particularly mysterious about consciousness, whether or not my model proves accurate.)

(Oh, and regards to Panspermia, the key point is that in attempting to determine whether the universe, and specifically, our local conditions, are fine-tuned for the creation of life here on this planet, one is assuming that life was created on this planet. In evaluating the probability of its natural occurrence, it's assuming that it isn't matched to the environment for other reasons that don't require a creator of the universe to explain (an extra-terrestrial origin); the point in bringing it up is not to offer a better theory, it's to point out that assuming the converse, that life originated here, and calculating your probabilities on the basis of life having been created here by natural processes, introduces assumptions into your calculation of the probability which themselves can't be justified. I don't believe in Panspermia of the bug-eyed alien type, but if you're going to make an attempt to assess the probabilities of the specific life on earth existing, you have to factor in all relevant possibilities, and exclude any unjustified assumptions.)

[Minimalist]

Unlike sterile religious bullshit - or pointless philosophical babble - science continues to make progress on the issue.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/2013031...UVM81.html

Physicists announced Thursday they believe they have discovered the subatomic particle predicted nearly a half-century ago, which will go a long way toward explaining what gives electrons and all matter in the universe size and shape.

The elusive particle, called a Higgs boson, was predicted in 1964 to help fill in our understanding of the creation of the universe, which many theorize occurred in a massive explosion known as the Big Bang. The particle was named for Peter Higgs, one of the physicists who proposed its existence, but it later became popularly known as the "God particle."

I personally despise that name. The particle exists....unlike fucking "god."

[Bitterblkcoffeeman]

Hello everyone. I'm new today. My name is Bitter. My family has and probably will continue to believe because it's been ingrained for generations now. The answer for them is simple, the majority will always be theists in my book for that very reason. It's become some morbid knee jerk reaction with them. They can't control what they believe anymore. I'm not particularly bright, but I cringe when I'm around them for brief visits home. Everyone seems "conditioned" somehow. My wife and I remain in the closet for fear of exorcism. Her family is as conditioned by it as mine.

[Whateverist]

Just throwing this out there. Could panspermia be the cause of all the mythical man-beasts of legend and mythology? Discuss.

[Mister Agenda]

Hello everyone. I'm new today. My name is Bitter. My family has and probably will continue to believe because it's been ingrained for generations now. The answer for them is simple, the majority will always be theists in my book for that very reason. It's become some morbid knee jerk reaction with them. They can't control what they believe anymore. I'm not particularly bright, but I cringe when I'm around them for brief visits home. Everyone seems "conditioned" somehow. My wife and I remain in the closet for fear of exorcism. Her family is as conditioned by it as mine.

Hang in there! It gets better.

[Drew_2013]

Listen, dude: if you want to demand by fiat that we don't use certain arguments then it's up to you to know what those arguments are before you do. I've given you proof to support a theory I introduced into evidence, read it or not at your leisure; the point is that I could do it. The multiverse hypothesis isn't some cockamamie bullshit I'm using as chaff to distract against your theory, it's a real scientific one that goes against the dichotomy you're trying to set up.

And I am making my own case in that regard. Why should I have to read some links and guess what they mean to you or what you believe is salient? Do you own work.

If it was self evident you wouldn't have literally everyone here arguing against you.

As a theist I could say the sky was blue and folks would argue it.

I noticed it. I also noticed you're trying to misapply those words. Do you even know what the argument from personal incredulity is?

I'm sure according to the atheist dictionary and othordoxy it means something else.

you're being skeptical of the path that the evidence leads, because you just can't imagine how that would be so.

I see...so your belief in atheism is imaginary...I buy that.

That, or you're being dishonest to try and score points.

If you want to call me dishonest or a liar get in back of the line.

You fucking liar.

Get in back of the line.

[Esquilax]

You know, Drew, if you don't have anything valuable, interesting or relevant to say, it's okay to admit that. You don't have to just spew out a line of bullshit to fill the space, you can just admit that you're wrong. There's no shame in that.

[Drew_2013]

1. The existence of the universe.

I assume you agree the universe does exist. How did you refute (prove wrong) the possibility a transcendent Creator caused it to exist?

By establishing that
a) Mere existence of something is not sufficient to prove that it had a cause. Given that we do not know of any other universes, we have no reason to assume that this one was caused, much less that it was caused by a transcendent being.

Even though the weight and preponderance of scientific data is in favor of the universe coming into existence (at least in its present form) appox 13.7 billion years ago, I didn't argue from that point of view, I merely stated the universe exists which is a foundational evidence to the claim God created the universe. I couldn't make the claim someone murdered someone without a dead body or evidence someone was killed. Evidence is synonymous with facts. Facts that are probative (comport with a claim) are admissible. Secondly whether or not the existence of something is reason to believe it was caused is in the eye of the beholder. When we consider that everything we can think of in existence can be traced back to a cause we have no reason to make an exception of the existence of the universe.

b) Other theories, such as eternal universe, multiverse, stable time loop universe, cyclical universe and causeless universe are all equally supported by and explain the fact of the universe existing. Evidence that supports everything is evidence for nothing.

Again whether they equally do so or not is in the eye of the beholder. As an atheist committed to naturalistic explanations of course you would opine a naturalistic explanation is equally valid. But if by your own admission they are equally valid how does that refute my theory?

Again, by establishing that
a) Mere existence of life is not sufficient to even establish that it was caused. You first have to establish that it did not exist at some point - a task made even more difficult if panspermia is considered.
b) Existence of life is better explained by alternate theories such as abiogenesis which actually have some other evidence to them.

You don't actually subscribe panspermia do you? I know you're going to claim it's irrelevant whether you subscribe to the objections you want others to consider. Again I never made the argument that life began to exist. Let me refresh your memory.

2. The fact life exists

Again this might seem like a trivial fact but I don't think anyone disputes life exists. If life didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to debate whether we owe our existence to a Creator, its the fact life exists that raises the question whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend to cause life or even cause the existence of a universe that allows life in the first place. There is no condition that needs to true for atheism to possibly be true. There are conditions that need to occur in order for us to have a debate about whether a Creator of the universe exists. Two of those conditions are a suitable place for us to live and for life to exist. No one would postulate God doesn't exist therefore I expect a universe with life to exist. The existence of the universe and life are red flags that lead folks to question the narrative that we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend either the universe or life, yet inspite of neither the desire, the intent or the plan to create life, without knowledge of how to do it mindless forces stumbled blindly upon the formula to create life and cause a universe that allows life. Moreover if we are to believe the atheist narrative, lifeless mindless forces created something totally unlike itself...life. Yet the only way we have observed life coming about is through life. We have yet to observe life coming from non-life. The theory is that's how it came about but evidently we haven't been able to figure out using intelligence how to cause life that mindless forces are alleged to have produced without trying or knowing how.

Also there is irrefutable observable repeatable evidence that life comes from life.

c) Even setting aside the better theories, your god hypothesis is no better at explaining life than other hypotheses such as multiverse or eternal universe.

Again whether such alternate theories are better or worse is in the eye of the beholder. Of course you being a born again atheist you are going to prefer naturalisitic theories (even ones you yourself don't think are true) over a supernaturalistic explanation. If by your own admission the god theory is no better (but no worse) how do such competing theories refute my theory. Why by the same token doesn't my theory refute your theory?

Again, existence of sentient life is better explained through evolution and the simple fact of its existence is not sufficient to establish anything transcendent.

Why did evolution care if sentience emerged? Whether or not the fact of it is sufficient reason to infer the existence of a Creator is in the eyes of the beholder. People can decide for themselves if the better explanation is that mindless lifeless forces without plan or intent created something totally unlike itself life and mind or whether something known to exist (life and mind) caused it. In either event your opinion doesn't refute (disprove) anything. It just means you disagree but we already knew that.

All I have to do here is to point out all the ways you fail to make the case. All I have to show are all the other theories that equally or better support the evidence provided.

How does showing my theory is equilvalent to other theories refute my theory? If as an atheist you admit my theory is equivalent not only have you not refuted it, you have agreed its equally as valid as competing theories. But in the final analysis, it doesn't matter what you or I think it's what impartial people think that matters.