The Case for Theism

[The Reality Salesman01]

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.

When I answer "no" I very reasonably mean "no, I have no reason to believe that", not "I believe the opposite to be true". My answer would be exactly the same if you substituted the pink elephant, unicorn and other nonsense you mentioned earlier and I would mean exactly the same thing "no, I have no reason to believe that". There is no way and no reason for me to manufacture believe (including disbelief) in things I have no experience of. There is no inconsistency in the agnostic atheist's position. The agnosticism is primary. The atheism is only elaboration.

That does not mean I have some consistent standard for what I will and won't believe. I believe many unsupportable propositions about other people's mental states for one thing. I admit to having faith in things without evidence, gods for me just isn't one of them.

I have no problem with others having faith in gods for reasons they can't justify to me. I understand that. It is only when someone tries to insist that others believe without justification that which they accept for personal reasons that I object.



So are you an agnostic theist as was suggested or do you think that is just as untenable as you seem to think true of agnostic atheism?



Another question I have is whether your argument is intended to show that belief in any system of religion whatsoever is justified or only belief in one of them?

Another form of this question is: Do you think Zebras are black with white stripes or..white with black stripes? lol, I hate how complicated these labels can get.

[Mister Agenda]

Doesn't the "fine tuning" argument also argue for a god who is beholden to those very limits? As I understand it, the argument goes that certain universal constants are tuned precisely as they must in order for the universe to support life. But that implies that god had no other option than to set those constants in exactly those positions. Had the all powerful and all knowing god turned any of the dials just the tiniest fraction to the right or left, the universe fizzles. Therefore, it doesn't stand to reason that god is the creator of the universe; it's more likely that he stumbled upon a "universe tuning machine" that was improperly tuned, figured out the proper settings, and BAM!!! Instant universe!

What's that? Where did the "universe tuning machine" come from? Damn, do you always ask such dumb questions?

That is correct, a 'fine-tuned' universe is the only kind of universe in which a supernatural explanation is NOT required to explain our existence.

---

Would you give an example of something unknowable, or inexplicable in mathematical terms, so we can compare?

Sure the radio hiss generated by the universe is an example of chaos. There's no mathematical formula that can make predictions of what sounds are going to emit or find any pattern.

I didn't ask for an example of something that can't be mathematically predicted, I asked for something that can't be mathematically described. Predictability wasn't part of your claim, the capacity to be described mathematically was.

If I were to take a box of 200 toothpicks and drop them from 50 feet it would create a random pattern that isn't predictable. However, it isn't completely random or completely unpredictable because it still is bound by the laws of physics primarily gravity. If we dropped the box in space the pattern would be even more unpredictable. Barring the laws of physics or someone intentionally doing something this is what happens when we allow unguided forces to interact freely.

I appreciate you trying to provide an example, but the fact that you had to resort to predictability instead of the criteria you outlined illustrates my point that your criteria apply to absolutely anything. The only reason I can think of to bar the laws of physics is to support your argument. Think about that: if you have to imagine the laws of physics not applying in order to bolster your argument, that's where you'll go. You know that the laws of physics are exactly what makes life possible, right?

Which explanation is more magical? The explanation that mindless, lifeless forces minus any plan or intent produced a universe that resulted in something unlike itself sentient life or it was the result of planning and design?

Care to support the notion that something can only produce something like itself? This is what is sad about theistic indoctrination. Smart people can't see their own nose if it's inconvenient to their argument. Given the laws of physics, it's inevitable that if somewhere among the billions of billions of planets in the universe, a molecule able to replicate itself occurs, life will be a predictable result. The 'mindless forces' that will lead to more and more complex life forms over long periods of time are well-understood.

Not sure what your point is.

An omnipotent being need not be restricted by fine-tuning, if it wants humans, it can have them in any conceivable universe. The only kind of universe that doesn't require a supernatural explanation for our existence is one in which it is possible for us to evolve and survive.

A better example from Wikipedia is

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The reason this argument is false is because owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich.

What makes this example better?

I didn't make the argument

If God created the universe then God exists
there is a universe
Therefore God exists and is the creator of the universe.

However this is a different case. If a personal agent caused, designed and created the universe such a person by definition would be God. I'm not making the argument that only God can create a universe with the characteristics observed, such a universe exists, therefore God created it. The argument I am making is more like.

1. There is a universe
2. There is life
3. There is sentient life
4. The universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

I am building a case from facts and inferring the existence of a designer creator as opposed to the other possibility that these facts occured without plan or intent. I'm not denying there could be some other possibility than God.

Then you're going to get nowhere. You're building a case that doesn't support the conclusion you want it to reach. 'Therefore God or something else' is a conclusion we already agree with. You think it was God, we think it was more likely to be something else.

Have you considered holding your positiion on faith instead of logic? If you're determined to believe what you do, why drag logic and science into it? As a famous lawyer once said, 'if the Bible said Jonah swallowed the whale, I'd believe it'.

[Drew_2013]

I don't think any of my opponents in this debate actually subscribe to the notion the universe had to be as it is, there isn't a shred of evidence to support that belief but my detractors only demand evidence of things they don't believe, theories that support their belief as in this case, don't require a shred of evidence. They also would like the triers of this case to believe that alternate theories minus any evidence and which they don't subscribe to somehow refute the theistic theory.

Except, there is plenty of evidence for that the universe had to be what it is, not the least of which is the fact that we do not know of any other way to could've been. Your theistic theory is refuted by your very own logic - you don't have any shred of evidence to support it.

You'll have to get your arguments straight. You can't argue that the universe may have to be as it is and at the same time deny it must be compatitble with conscious life. If it has to be the way it is...then it would have to be compatible with conscious life. But I suspect somehow you're going to say that's wrong.

Your so called evidence supports all other theories equally - so there is no reason for us to pick yours over the others.

Of course it would be up to those listening to our respective arguments to decide who has the best of it. I know you wish it was just up to you; we already know your opinion, it comes with the label atheist. The lines of evidence I have submitted comport with the belief we are the result of a Creator. Your rebuttals at best only hope to show how such things might have come about apart from a Creator. These rebuttals would be great for fellow atheists totally convinced no God exists. Not sure how persuasive impartial folks would find them to be.

I thought this was supposed to be new evidence, but you are simply repeating refuted arguments over and over again.

Your refutations are a pathetic joke to me. There just a sop to your own ego.

When was the last time you opened your laptop?

I have been in IT for over 20 years and I have taken apart hundreds of laptops (and put them back together)

Nope. A conclusion doesn't necessarily have to be true to be valid.

No comment...it speaks for itself.

[Drew_2013]

Doesn't the "fine tuning" argument also argue for a god who is beholden to those very limits? As I understand it, the argument goes that certain universal constants are tuned precisely as they must in order for the universe to support life. But that implies that god had no other option than to set those constants in exactly those positions

How does it imply that? If I engineered a new car wouldn't I have free reign on how to do things?

That is correct, a 'fine-tuned' universe is the only kind of universe in which a supernatural explanation is NOT required to explain our existence.

According to atheists there isn't any phenonmena or event that requires a Creator.

I didn't ask for an example of something that can't be mathematically predicted, I asked for something that can't be mathematically described. Predictability wasn't part of your claim, the capacity to be described mathematically was.

Actually I used the word explicable in mathematical terms. I don't think there is any mathematical algorithm that would make the random noise mathematically explicable. I suppose in some sense it could be mathematically described.

I appreciate you trying to provide an example, but the fact that you had to resort to predictability instead of the criteria you outlined illustrates my point that your criteria apply to absolutely anything. The only reason I can think of to bar the laws of physics is to support your argument. Think about that: if you have to imagine the laws of physics not applying in order to bolster your argument, that's where you'll go. You know that the laws of physics are exactly what makes life possible, right?

Absolutely. The point is anyone can decide for themselves whether a universe that appears compelled to behave in a certain manner that allows life and sentient life to exist is best explained because it was designed to do so or whether some other method apart from a designer better explains it. In spite of my detractors I would argue that apart from a designer, planner or engineer, we'd have to chalk it up to fortuitous happenstance. It surprises me how vehemently opposed the opposition is to the notion we owe our existence to most outrageous stroke of luck imaginable, yet at the same time deny it was intentionally and deliberately done which would nullify the stroke of luck. I guess they don't like the notion were the result of happenstance and luck any more than by design and engineering.

Care to support the notion that something can only produce something like itself? This is what is sad about theistic indoctrination. Smart people can't see their own nose if it's inconvenient to their argument.

I mentioned early on that the persausiveness of these arguments is predicated on peoples life experiences and thier own sensibilites which you agreed is the case. I didn't make a categoric statement that like only produces like. I didn't state it as a law. In our everyday observations it holds true and I could cite innumerble examples in which it is true. If I am mistaken, then in a rare example lifeless matter turned into life. That is what MUST have happened if atheism is true. Atheism (IMHO) doesn't start from the observation that sentient beings came into existence in a universe that allowed there existence, it starts with what is accepted as an irrefutable fact that God doesn't exist (although all atheists will deny this is true) then works backwards to explain how our existence and that of the universe could have come about apart from God. Any theory apart from God carries instant weight and merit because it has to have occurred apart from God.

Given the laws of physics, it's inevitable that if somewhere among the billions of billions of planets in the universe, a molecule able to replicate itself occurs, life will be a predictable result. The 'mindless forces' that will lead to more and more complex life forms over long periods of time are well-understood.

That is the theory of abiogensis. To say it has to happen appears to be a naturalism in the gaps argument.

An omnipotent being need not be restricted by fine-tuning, if it wants humans, it can have them in any conceivable universe. The only kind of universe that doesn't require a supernatural explanation for our existence is one in which it is possible for us to evolve and survive.

The word omnipotent is a religious characteristic of God. If our existence turned out to be the experiment of a scientist in a parallel universe theism would be true.

Then you're going to get nowhere. You're building a case that doesn't support the conclusion you want it to reach. 'Therefore God or something else' is a conclusion we already agree with. You think it was God, we think it was more likely to be something else.

I don't expect to go anywhere with atheists convinced of atheism, particulary ones on a discussion board who argue in favor of atheism rigorously. However if we were arguing this case before people who are neither convinced of theism or atheism I'd do quite well because the availble evidence supports the theistic position. I know you and others think highly of your counter arguments and attempts to explain away the evidence that comports with a Creator, but thats because your already convinced there is no God ergo some other explanation MUST be true. Therefore you give a great amount of credence to theories that scarcely have any evidence in their favor and which you may even think are false because even if that particular theory doesn't pan out...something like it MUST be true. You and others are philosophically committed to your postion. Many atheists begin by despising religion or some religious people they met who make their skin crawl, then they transfer that loathing to belief God doesn't exist. Then they come to sites like this where they learn all the pat atheist 101 answers and counter theories which they subscribe to without applying a modicum of critical thinking.

Have you considered holding your positiion on faith instead of logic? If you're determined to believe what you do, why drag logic and science into it? As a famous lawyer once said, 'if the Bible said Jonah swallowed the whale, I'd believe it'.

I believe we are the result of a Creator because the preponderance of available evidence leans that way. Not all the evidence by the way and if I were an atheist, I'd make a case from facts that support the atheist model rather than offer all kinds of nebulous counter theories.

[Tonus]

How does it imply that? If I engineered a new car wouldn't I have free reign on how to do things?

As I understand it, the "fine tuning" argument holds that there are certain 'settings' for the universe that had to be tuned to a very very narrow range in order to support life. Change any of them even a small amount, and the universe doesn't work. The idea is that the best explanation for a universe that is so carefully tuned that it could support life is that there was a deity who created it that way.

But if the universe requires such fine tuning and could not support life under any other circumstance, it implies that god could not have changed the settings without breaking everything. Otherwise, the universe wouldn't need fine-tuning; life could emerge under any of the settings. If the latter is the case, then god isn't constrained. But that also undercuts the argument that such a carefully calibrated universe is the sign of a creator.

In other words, your comment I quoted above is correct. If you engineered a car, you would have free rein on how things worked. And if you engineered a universe, you would be in full control as well.

[Mister Agenda]

Doesn't the "fine tuning" argument also argue for a god who is beholden to those very limits? As I understand it, the argument goes that certain universal constants are tuned precisely as they must in order for the universe to support life. But that implies that god had no other option than to set those constants in exactly those positions

How does it imply that? If I engineered a new car wouldn't I have free reign on how to do things?

No. You're only human. You can't build a car any old way and expect it to work. You can't make a driveable car out of nothing but marshmellows or grain alcohol, for instance. Do you think that if God engineered a new car, he couldn't make a perfectly serviceable one out of marshmellows if he wanted to, with no more effort required than it would take him to make one out of steel and plastic?

[Drew_2013]

Hello Tonus

As I understand it, the "fine tuning" argument holds that there are certain 'settings' for the universe that had to be tuned to a very very narrow range in order to support life. Change any of them even a small amount, and the universe doesn't work. The idea is that the best explanation for a universe that is so carefully tuned that it could support life is that there was a deity who created it that way.

Fair enough.

But if the universe requires such fine tuning and could not support life under any other circumstance, it implies that god could not have changed the settings without breaking everything. Otherwise, the universe wouldn't need fine-tuning; life could emerge under any of the settings. If the latter is the case, then god isn't constrained. But that also undercuts the argument that such a carefully calibrated universe is the sign of a creator.

I see your point. If we observed a universe that didn't supoort or even allow our existence yet we existed anyway, we'd have no choice but to attribute our existence to an on going supernatural act. Although that wouldn't stop atheists from claiming there is some unknown naturalism in the gaps explanation that would account for it . I agree that if God wanted to make his presence unmistakenly known in some fashion God could do so. I conclude that for whatever reason, God chose not to do so. Thats the thing about personal agents, they can do things for reasons we don't know.

The last line of evidence I introduced wasn't the fine tuning argument per se.

4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

I noted characterisitics of the universe we find ourselves in and argued those characteristics are more in keeping with the theistic model than the non-theistic one. I will formally submit the fact there are exacting conditions not only for life as we know it to exist, but even for planets, stars and galaxies to exist. Actually your counter argument is of the type you rejected.

1. If God exists, God would create a universe in which sentient life came about in a fashion that is naturally impossible.
2. The universe allows life in a way that is naturally possible
3. Therefore God doesn't exist.

The falllacy is in point one, the notion that if God exists he would create a universe in which our existence is impossible barring a supernatural occurance and that is the only way in which God would create a universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

I agree that if God wanted to make his presence unmistakenly known in some fashion God could do so. I conclude that for whatever reason, God chose not to do so. Thats the thing about personal agents, they can do things for reasons we don't know.

Except that it's not difficult to see why this was done, and it makes a great example for the core problem with all the god nonsense you've posted thusfar. You've decided to interpret it this way because you have a conclusion in mind which you must preserve, and so are willing to change any particular barring the conclusion. Unfortunately you've failed to support your conclusion in the first place....and you've had a few pages now to get that done.....

[Neo-Scholastic]

4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

Now you're on the right track. Keep pursuing that line of reasoning.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pursuing, lol a bit more than pursuit is necessary to turn any of that into "goddidit".