The Case for Theism

[genkaus]

What a funny methodology. Decide what you 'believe' the facts to be - or want the facts to be - and then argue about what follows from that.

I'm sorry, are you saying that any of what I said was not factual?

This is what is known as engaging in a rational discussion? Then anyone can dismiss your work by dismissing your initial premises.

They could - but I justify my premises and any dismissal without similarly rational justification would result in them opting out of the rational discussion.

But that won't stop you.

No, it won't.

What do you think the odds are you won't be able to agree on the appropriate initial premises? I'd say very nearly one.

I'd say the odds or agreement are irrelevant. If I can support my position and the opponent cannot refute it but still disagrees then it is no longer a rational discussion.

---

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.

The trivial fact of life's existence is not sufficient to even establish that it had a cause. 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. You are assuming a lot of other known facts such as life did not always exist and had to be caused without explicitly stating them in an attempt marginalize everything else that knowledge would entail.

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.

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 - something you were unable to refute. We can agree that life was caused but your phrasing reveal an internal contradiction. Given that the forces of the universe are "mindless", i.e. they do no have any intentions plans or designs, it'd be impossible for them to be blind or to stumble upon anything. This is yet another attempt to presume consciousness where none exists.

Moreover if we are to believe the atheist narrative, lifeless mindless forces created something totally unlike itself...life.

Something we see occur very often.

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.

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.

If the universe didn't exist and life didn't exist its still possible a Creator who hasn't created anything might exist, but there would be no evidence to suspect there was a Creator.

A ridiculous statement. The very idea of evidence is dependent upon the existence of the universe.

Under such a circumstance the atheists claim there is no evidence of a Creator would be true. The claim there is no evidence of a Creator is false.

Invalid logic. If A then B does not imply if !A then !B.

Now, lets be clear, the two lines of evidence I presented so far obviously doesn't persuade any atheist that God exists.

It doesn't persuade anyone with an inkling of how logic works.

However, evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because you don't agree with the conclusion.

No, it becomes non-evidence because it does not indicate your conclusion.

I know exactly why most atheists maintain vehemently the position there is no evidence in favor of theism. Most atheists will always deny there is evidence in favor of theism because they like to marginalize theism as strictly a faith proposition. If they were to admit there is evidence that favors the theist narrative then its no longer just a faith proposition that can be easily dismissed.

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.