The Case for Theism

[Esquilax]

For the sake of new folks viewing this thread, the 'false dichotomy' I am alleged to have made is that all phemonmena or events are either the result of plan and design or happenstance. I contend that we either owe our existence to a planner and designer who intentionally created the universe for the purpose of creating life or the fact of our existence and that of the universe was an unplanned event that occurred not intentionally but by happenstance.

Why do you repeat your initial (false) premise before even delving into my clearly delivered objections? Kind of poisoning the well, aren't you?

No I never said anything about the nature of the existence of God. Such a universe wasn't caused intentionally, wasn't planned and didn't intend humans or life to exist right? Explain to me how apart from mind and intent anything can occur that isn't by happenstance?

If a universe was eternal, then it could not have happened by purely random chance, as there would be no point at which it did not exist.

Did the universe that sprung up as a reaction to a divergence due so intentionally? Minus a personal agent who intentionally caused it to occur wasn't the event an unguided, unplanned occurance?

No, because the multiple worlds hypothesis dictates that every event causes divergences, even completely unconscious ones like, for example, earthquakes. In this case it is, in fact, more likely that our universe was created as the result of a divergence from a natural event in some other one, that is nevertheless something completely predictable and non-random, given powerful enough predictive tools.

This is why we say your design-or-chance claim is a false dichotomy; you're claiming those are the only two choices, but there are many, many more even within the realm of established theoretical science that conform to neither of those definitions. You're setting up two choices and hoping that everyone else doesn't realize there are more, and now that you've very clearly had two of those additional possibilities explained to you, will you admit that you were mistaken?

2. The fact life exists

Ah, shit...

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.

Whoa whoa, let's take a step back. Why is it a red flag? The mere existence of a thing is not evidence one way or another, after all, we see things in nature that are very random indeed yet to all observers seem designed. There are rock formations that look like all kinds of things, and yet were sculpted by erosion, very much an unguided process; saying something looks designed only gets you to the fact that it looks designed, not that it is.

Beyond that, you're looking at it backwards. In accordance with evolutionary theory, life develops in accordance with its environment, not the other way around. It's not that the universe allows life, but that life fills the niches that are present in the universe.

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.

I shouldn't have to point this out, but you've also never observed a god creating a universe or life, so this isn't really a point in favor of either one of us. Unless you can provide detailed information as to your own theory, don't start using current ignorance of ours as evidence of its weakness; we can throw that right back.

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. 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.

So long as you recognize that we have rebuttals. Your evidence is hardly incontrovertible.

Now, lets be clear, the two lines of evidence I presented so far obviously doesn't persuade any atheist that God exists. However, evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because you don't agree with the 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.

Don't assume that your evidence is completely strong, Drew.

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

Stop conflating the layman's definition of a theory with the scientific one. In science, a theory is a framework that explains facts, and is in itself completely factual. A scientific theory is the graduation point of an idea, the highest status that one can achieve.