The Case for Theism

[Esquilax]

So the best you can do is offer a hypothetical which you don't actually think is true.

No, I don't happen to think either of those examples are true. But others do, and have advanced them as serious theories, with evidence to back them up. I'm holding off on judgement because I'm simply not well enough equipped yet to make that decision, but that's beside the point. The idea behind showing you these was to illustrate to you that there are more than two options here, whether you subscribe to them or not. Like it or not, other people believe different things, hence your dichotomy is false, either through your own ignorance of the alternatives, or dishonesty. I'd like to think it's just the former, but the fact that you continue to argue the same tired claim sort of shows me it's the latter.

Now, will you at least admit that there are other hypotheses other than design or chance?

Thats your story and your stuck with it. Of course you don't really believe this BS either right?

Incidentally, did you do any research into the theory before proclaiming it to be BS?

No I'm not going to say I am mistaken because you offer two hypothetical scenarios which I doubt even you believe actually exist. In the long run though it doesn't matter what I think or what you think it's what the reasonable impartial person who weighs our respective arguments thinks that matters. And even though you declare the dichotomy false, I doubt any reasonable person would. In peoples every day life experiences they note that something happens unguided and unplanned in which we say it was happenstance or by chance that it occurred, other wise something happens intentionally because someone planned it or designed it to occur in a particular fashion. And why do you go to such rediculous extremes to deny what is common sense? Because you don't want to defend the consequences of your own belief, that we owe our existence either to intentional planning and design which you reject or to happenstance and serendipity which amazingly you also seem to reject but in fact I don't think you do reject that either. You just want to obfuscate and cloud the issue because that's what atheists do in defense of atheism.

Hey, serious question: are you Ray Comfort? Because you seem to have a similar inability to alter your argument in the face of new information.

Again this is only the first two lines of evidence at this point, not the entire case. But for us to even have this discussion about whether we owe our existence to a Creator who intended us to exist or to mindless forces and happenstance (even though you reject the notion those are the only two choices) both a universe and life have to exist. The fact the universe by itself exists raises the question (that wouldn't be asked if it didn't exist) how did it get here? Did someone cause it to exist? Did it poof into existence uncaused out of nothing? Did it always exist? Was it caused by some other event that leads back to an endless recession of events? If it didn't exist we'd ask none of those questions. But now we have another piece of the puzzle, not only does the universe exist but it also allows life to exist. It may have even caused life to exist. The existence of both the universe and life raise the same questions again only now whatever the answer is it has to account for both phenomena. Was it as you suggest and unguided process like we observe in rock formations or was it intentionally caused to exist by a Creator? But if neither the universe or life existed the questions wouldn't be raised.

I quite agree, we can ask the question because we exist. But the fact that we do exist doesn't point directly to a creator, nor to random chance. It just points to the fact that we exist. Stop reading new information into things that can't support it.

We know that isn't true. Life adopted to the conditions on earth in a universe that has a plethora of other conditions that would allow the only type of life we know of to exist.

You're just pulling that out of your ass. Funny, I thought you said you weren't dealing in hypotheticals.

Because unless you're telling me you've visited every other planet in the universe and seen that they have no life, and to have visited alternative universes with different physical constants and verified a lack of life there, then you really have no basis to make that claim.

No but I have observed life coming from life. I haven't observed life coming from inert material. People can weigh for themselves the merit of our respective arguments. I know you think its up to you if my arguments and evidence carry weight but...it isn't.

Hear that? It's the sound of the point whistling right over your head.

Let me rephrase, then: you are saying that since we've never seen life coming from non life, that's an argument against our position, right? Then isn't it also true that the fact that you've never seen a god creating things also an argument against yours?

That's why theism is an opinion...as is atheism.

Yep!

Its an attempt to create a scenario that explains observations and allows testing of the scenario to see if it fact passes scientific muster. A confirmed theory through testing when it graduates to scientific fact is the highest status a theory can achieve.

Yes, okay. And we've confirmed the theory of evolution. It... it's been confirmed. We've confirmed it. Go and look it up, if you don't believe me.