The Case for Theism

[Drew_2013]

Hello Mister Agenda,

If we're going to limit ourselves to known facts, fine tuning can't enter into the debate. That the physical constants could be different is a thought exercise, a 'what if'. For all we know, those are the only contants possible for a universe. The weak anthropic principle allows us to predict that there are no conditions in the universe that would preclude our existence, because we are here...and that is ALL it lets us say for a fact.

I'll address that later.

Yes, I can't prove Santa or toothfairies don't exist, especially if they had defenders willing to do what apologists do for God: come up with ad hoc explanations for why they exist despite a lack of evidence for them. I don't believe in them, I don't 'anti-believe' in them. I do assign their likelihood a very low probability, but I could be mistaken. I don't insist that they don't exist, I insist that believing that they do isn't a rational belief in the sense of it being based on sound reasoning. It could be a rational belief in the sense that in some societies it can be dangerous not to hold that some particular proposed supernatural being actually exists.

Depends on what you mean by proof. If you mean absolute incontrovertible proof something is true or false...probably not. In general there are three kinds of proof generally accepted. Scientific proof usually means confirmation of a theory by repeated observation and others duplicating the experiment. A very high degree of certitude but still not always certain. Then in the legal realm there is the criminal level of proof which is beyond a reasonable doubt. Not any or all doubt but reasonable doubt. It is a little subjective. Then there is the civil standard which is a mere preponderance which means which ever side of a question provides the better argument. Santa and Toothfairies can be disproven to at least a burden of beyond reasonable doubt. Its not as if any sane lucid adult believes in such anyway. I don't just lack belief in Santa if Santa is defined as a personal agent who deliveries presents world wide on Christmas eve I disbelieve it and can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

So you believe in God partly because of the fallacy of argument from ignorance (if you don't have an explanation, mine is more likely to be right)?

No the whole point of this post is to list facts that support my contention. Not what I don't know but what is well known.

I don't believe in God because of lack of evidence in favor of belief and because I've yet to hear an argument for the existence of God that wasn't either fallacious or based on unsound premises. As the definition of evidence suggests that it should be persuasive to a skeptic, I'm interested in finding out what evidence persuaded you to stop being an atheist...I assume you were an atheist, as you don't need evidence to convince you to believe what you already believe. Otherwise, you're merely a theist who continues to believe what you already believed and also believes that your belief is, in addition, justified by some sort of evidence. (Whew!)

At one point in my life I was a confirmed atheist or at least a very content agnostic. Again I don't attend any church and I'm not promoting any religion. It wasn't just the evidence for theism that led me to subscribe to it. I found to be an atheist is to substitute Goddidit for Naturedidit and I have no better reason to think nature could do it.

It's my opinion that we don't owe our existence to a Creator, but I could be wrong. Big Grin

Thats a reasonable position.

---

But if we have to limit ourselves to known facts then consider this...The Big Bang theory states that the universe started from a singularity.

You're already off the rails. A theory is not a fact.

---

Um, theism could be true without a universe existing, unless you're saying that there can't be a God without a cosmos (and that would need to be supported). Both positions require someone to exist to hold the position. A theist is a person who believes at least one god exists, an atheist is a person who isn't a theist. Presumably, a God would count as a person who believes (knows for a fact, in fact) that at least one God exists, so theism is a position that can be held in the absence of a universe, while atheism cannot.

No the point was for atheism to be true there is no God nothing needs to exist. For there to be people who don't believe God exists then yes people need to exist.

Physical necessity. When a tree falls down, the timing may be unpredictable, but trees don't stand forever.

Thats assuming the laws of physics and nature are necessary. Even supposing that if a universe exists it has to have the laws of nature we observe (which isn't a fact) according to atheism there was no who engineered and designed the universe to be as it is. If trees in our observation instead of falling down fell up then that would be a law of nature. Unless your suggesting that the laws of nature aren't just what we happen to observe but in fact they really are laws written into the fabric of nature but wouldn't that be rather antithetical to the philosophy of atheism? Because what except a transcendent agent could dictate how nature behaves?

before you can ask the question if there is evidence for a creator, one must first define, not only what constitutes evidence, but you need to define a Creator, since that word, itself, will get different responses based on how each person holds it. As noted here, it appears that you are defining God as a mindless force that sort of exists, unaware of anything.

My definition of God (or Creator) is the theism definition of God. The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.