The Case for Theism

[pocaracas]

Drew,
Seriously? The fine tuning argument? Fuck me.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mij4DYYnkF8

---

Ah, it wouldn't be a scientific lecture if the lecturer didn't press some button and move to another slide by mistake.

Drew, if you want to give us proof of the existence of a divinity, tell it to come forth and show itself.
If you're going for Argument from ignorance, Fine tuning, God-of-the-gaps.... please... don't.

[Drew_2013]

This has been a bit of a long thread and the "proofs" you have supplied so far are not convincing. Why is it, do you suppose, that you should have to go to such great lengths to prove your god exists? If he is as powerful and omnipresent as you believe, shouldn't proving him be a really simple task?

Actually its a very simple case submitting 5 irrefutable facts that support belief in theism. Those are the main reasons why a significant majority of people subscribe to some form of theism.

As for the narrow tolerances of the universe we find ourselves in, it is not surprising at all (and in fact it is REQUIRED) that our universe is exactly as it is. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't exist to find ourselves here

Why do we need to be here? I agree if conditions weren't nearly exactly as they are we wouldn't be here. Since according to atheists we aren't the result of plan or design or intent why would the universe care if the conditions for human life obtain?

Simply saying that the conditions of our universe are too specific to be here by pure chance is like saying that the chances of a particular raindrop falling on your head are too small for it to happen

It could be by chance if according to Martin Rees there are an infinitude of universes of varying characteristics. The ultimate time and chance in the gaps argument.

Nevertheless, out of all the countless billions of raindrops on the planet, all of the possible places you could be, all of the possible places the rain could fall, all of the possible times and orientations, weather conditions, humidity, wind and countless other factors, that raindrop still fell on your head.

I live near Seattle...

In the end, the chances of us finding ourselves in exactly the universe in which we find ourselves is exactly 1:1. This is where we are and getting here doesn't require a guiding hand or creator in any way. Our existence in this universe was inevitable.

That and a $1.00 will buy you a cup of coffee.

Isn't the same thing true of our planet? A real Goldilocks set of circumstances to be sure. But are those conditions as they are so that someone's creation will be nice and cozy? Or are we here to ask the question because the conditions for our existence made it possible to become observers?

There are many planetary conditions necessary for our type of life to exist but given the number of stars and confirmation those stars have planets its likely some solar system might contain a planet with favorable conditions.

No, because the burden of proof is on the person proposing the existence of the entity extra to the "naturalistic explanations" that already account for observed reality.

There are no verified naturalistic explanations that account for how the nature we observe came into existence. I agree the universe exists and we exist but you don't really have any idea how that came about do you? Do you think we are the result of a never begining endless recession of events that ultimately resulted in sentient beings who wonder how the heck we got here? Its not just theists who make a claim about how the universe and humans came about. Thiests claim we are the result of a Creator who intended our existence, atheists claim it was not. Thats what atheism means not or without God. Supposedly you have facts and data to support your opinion just as I do.

You're attempting a case, to be sure, but cogency is for the audience to decide.

I stand corrected.

[Minimalist]

Actually its a very simple case submitting 5 irrefutable facts that support belief in theism. Those are the main reasons why a significant majority of people subscribe to some form of theism.

Horseshit. Most people are born into a religion and lack the intellectual fucking curiosity to challenge what they've been told.

[Cyberman]

No, because the burden of proof is on the person proposing the existence of the entity extra to the "naturalistic explanations" that already account for observed reality.

There are no verified naturalistic explanations that account for how the nature we observe came into existence. I agree the universe exists and we exist but you don't really have any idea how that came about do you?

I don't need to. You're the one building the case for theism; you supply the evidence.

Do you think we are the result of a never begining endless recession of events that ultimately resulted in sentient beings who wonder how the heck we got here? Its not just theists who make a claim about how the universe and humans came about. Thiests claim we are the result of a Creator who intended our existence, atheists claim it was not. Thats what atheism means not or without God. Supposedly you have facts and data to support your opinion just as I do.

Again, I don't need facts and data to support my lack of belief in your claims, just as I don't need to buy special non-food to not eat, or wear un-wings not to fly. Atheists as a rule don't claim that everything didn't come about as a result of some creator, intelligent or otherwise; we simply ask that theists who make such claims provide evidence for why they, and by extension we, should believe them.

You're attempting a case, to be sure, but cogency is for the audience to decide.

I stand corrected.

You're welcome.

[Angrboda]

When SETI engineers search for signs of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, what are they looking for? The answer is surprisingly simple. They are looking for narrow-band radio emissions. This is because human beings build machines that produce these signals and, as far as we know, such emissions are not produced by mindless natural processes. The SETI engineers search for this signal, not because it is “complex” or fulfills some a priori criterion that would make it a “sign of intelligence,” but simply because they think they know what sorts of mechanisms are needed to produce it. This strategy may not work, but it is hard to see how the scientists could do any better. Our judgments about what counts as a sign of intelligent design must be based on empirical information about what designers often do and what they rarely do. As of now, these judgments are based on our knowledge of human intelligence. The more our hypotheses about intelligent designers depart from the human case, the more in the dark we are as to what the ground rules are for inferring intelligent design. It is imaginable that these limitations will subside as human beings learn more about the cosmos and the varieties of intelligence it contains. But for now, we are rather limited.

— Elliot Sober,

[Drew_2013]

Stimbo,

I don't need to. You're the one building the case for theism; you supply the evidence.

I have done so, its not my goal to persuade atheists, just make a reasonable case to justify my belief.

Again, I don't need facts and data to support my lack of belief in your claims, just as I don't need to buy special non-food to not eat, or wear un-wings not to fly.

Then I would question how seriously you really ponder this issue. This issue we are debating is about how we as a people came into existence and how the universe that allows our existence came about. There are two lines of reasoning; we came about by some naturalistic process that wasn't by intention or design but just happened to have happened or we came about intentionally by design by some Creator who caused our existence. Why should either belief be accepted by default? Why should you or anyone think to themselves I'll believe it was by a natural unintended process unless proven otherwise? I don't know that natural forces did do it...I don't even know if they could do it. By the way, most atheists claim they have arrived at their conclusion because they claim thats where the facts lead. What facts?

Atheists as a rule don't claim that everything didn't come about as a result of some creator, intelligent or otherwise; we simply ask that theists who make such claims provide evidence for why they, and by extension we, should believe them.

You don't seem like a person who merely has a lack of belief, but actually a fairly strong conviction that there is no God and our existence and the universe isn't the result of a creator and subsequently is the result of a natural process that didn't intend for us to exist. If all you had was a lack of belief the reasonable case I've made from facts should give you reason to reconsider.

---

I have seen another strategy. I have watched a couple of TV programs about SETI and the search. One scientist (I should look up his name but too lazy at the moment) has done a study on communication that he believes can differentiate between meaningless signals and intelligent communication. Regardless of language if communication is broken down into frequency of expression and charted from most frequent to least frequent it takes on a 45 degree angle. This is true of dolphin language even though we don't know what they're communicating. The upshot is if a pattern were detected they could use this method to determine if its intelligent communication.

When SETI engineers search for signs of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, what are they looking for? The answer is surprisingly simple. They are looking for narrow-band radio emissions. This is because human beings build machines that produce these signals and, as far as we know, such emissions are not produced by mindless natural processes. The SETI engineers search for this signal, not because it is “complex” or fulfills some a priori criterion that would make it a “sign of intelligence,” but simply because they think they know what sorts of mechanisms are needed to produce it. This strategy may not work, but it is hard to see how the scientists could do any better. Our judgments about what counts as a sign of intelligent design must be based on empirical information about what designers often do and what they rarely do. As of now, these judgments are based on our knowledge of human intelligence. The more our hypotheses about intelligent designers depart from the human case, the more in the dark we are as to what the ground rules are for inferring intelligent design. It is imaginable that these limitations will subside as human beings learn more about the cosmos and the varieties of intelligence it contains. But for now, we are rather limited.

— Elliot Sober,

[Baalzebutt]

I have done so, its not my goal to persuade atheists, just make a reasonable case to justify my belief.

And therein lies the problem, my deluded little friend. You are starting out with a belief and then looking for evidence to bolster or support that belief. That isn't how the game works.

[Darkstar]

And therein lies the problem, my deluded little friend. You are starting out with a belief and then looking for evidence to bolster or support that belief. That isn't how the game works.

^This x 5.

He's presupposed god from the start; none of this looks like evidence for a creator unless you do that.

[Esquilax]

Then I would question how seriously you really ponder this issue. This issue we are debating is about how we as a people came into existence and how the universe that allows our existence came about. There are two lines of reasoning; we came about by some naturalistic process that wasn't by intention or design but just happened to have happened or we came about intentionally by design by some Creator who caused our existence.

No matter how many times you say that, you're still wrong. I've shown you why.

Why should either belief be accepted by default?

You're quite right, neither of them should be believed by default, nor should any of the other multitude of possibilities you've closed your mind to. The problem we're having is that you are assuming that, by dint of disagreeing with your accepted belief, we are necessarily believing in the opposite. This is not only wrong, it's downright rude, given how many times this has been pointed out to you.

There's a third answer even in your false dichotomy, Drew. Saying "I do not believe in your claims about a created universe," does not trap us into the claim "I believe the universe was created from unguided methods." The option most of us slip to is "I don't know yet, and despite your claims otherwise, neither do you." It's entirely possible to just be waiting for more conclusive evidence than you're providing, you know.

Now, I argue against you, but that says nothing about my position, either. I argue against you because I find your argumentation to be fallacious and in need of correcting. I enjoy it, or at least, I do whenever my opponent appears capable of changing his argument. You just... keep on going.

Why should you or anyone think to themselves I'll believe it was by a natural unintended process unless proven otherwise?

They shouldn't. We don't.

I don't know that natural forces did do it...I don't even know if they could do it. By the way, most atheists claim they have arrived at their conclusion because they claim thats where the facts lead. What facts?

The ones we've been providing you with all thread. Great to see how closely you've been paying attention, though.

Oh, and the absence of facts also count: we've certainly got no facts that actually point to a creator.

[Drew_2013]

I have done so, its not my goal to persuade atheists, just make a reasonable case to justify my belief.

And therein lies the problem, my deluded little friend. You are starting out with a belief and then looking for evidence to bolster or support that belief. That isn't how the game works.

Actually like many I was brought up in Catholicism which I loathed. Then when I moved out from my parents I discarded any religious belief including belief in the existence of God. Then in my late 20's I re-examined the issue and wondered about my own existence, the existence of others and the existence of the universe and how it is we came about and ultimately came to the belief that we owe our existence to a Creator. Its an opinion, I could be wrong but I think it is the better explanation.

Then I would question how seriously you really ponder this issue. This issue we are debating is about how we as a people came into existence and how the universe that allows our existence came about. There are two lines of reasoning; we came about by some naturalistic process that wasn't by intention or design but just happened to have happened or we came about intentionally by design by some Creator who caused our existence.

No matter how many times you say that, you're still wrong. I've shown you why.

Any rational person including most atheists think we're either the result of plan and design by a personal agent or were the unintended result of some naturalistic process that didn't plan or intend us to exist. I don't think even you believe otherwise.

You're quite right, neither of them should be believed by default, nor should any of the other multitude of possibilities you've closed your mind to. The problem we're having is that you are assuming that, by dint of disagreeing with your accepted belief, we are necessarily believing in the opposite. This is not only wrong, it's downright rude, given how many times this has been pointed out to you.

That's rich an atheist calling me rude. Lets see if we can settle this once and for all. Do you believe (not do you know of theories) that our existence and that of the universe is the result of or exists in some other fashion that is neither the result of plan and design or some unguided naturalistic process that unintentionally resulted in our existence?

There's a third answer even in your false dichotomy, Drew. Saying "I do not believe in your claims about a created universe," does not trap us into the claim "I believe the universe was created from unguided methods." The option most of us slip to is "I don't know yet, and despite your claims otherwise, neither do you." It's entirely possible to just be waiting for more conclusive evidence than you're providing, you know.

Speaking for yourself you can claim that being an atheist just means you don't know or you're ignorant. But your mistaken if you think thats what the majority of atheists think and I could take a survey to prove it. The vast majority of atheists will claim to be nearly certain no God was involved in the cause of the universe because according to them there is no God, God doesn't exist. They will concede they're not certain how the universe came about or how life came about but they are extremely confident that some naturalistic unguided mindless method unintentionally caused the universe and life to exist and eventually this will be confirmed. I suspect that is what you actually believe but you prefer to pettifog the issue.