The Case for Theism

[Angrboda]

Whether or not anybody believes in these alternative explanations is completely irrelevant.

It is relevant. This isn't a debating class where someone is given a topic and a side to defend that they may or may not care about and all they want to do is win the debate. I'd like to believe the folks I am discussing this issue with are arguing in favor of atheism because they honestly and sincerely believe God doesn't exist and they have good valid reasons to think so as well as facts that lead them to this conclusion. If all they're are reduced to is raising objections by creating some hypothetical out of thin air they don't actually subscribe to then only people they will persuade to their point of view are fellow atheists who already share their view. What do you think would be the result if we were debating this topic before an audience of impartial people who are weighing our respective arguments and facts and my adversary admits even he doesn't subscribe to the objection he is raising. I know he'll explain to the audience its completely irrelevant whether I believe the line of bullshit I am promoting whats important is I attempt to fool you dim wits.

Philosophers adopt propositions they don't believe all the time, ex hypothesi, in the construction of a reductio ad absurdum argument. And reductio ad absurdum arguments are one of the main work horses of philosophy. (Though as a "philosophical" theist, I wouldn't expect you to know such things.) Moreover, whether a Genkaus believes in the validity of a specific hypothesis counts for little unless you're willing to stipulate that Genkaus' judgement of what is or is not a plausible explanation of origins is reliably trustworthy on the subject, in which case I think we see the end zone much nearer to thee than I had anticipated. Nor am I particularly concerned about what you can persuade a bunch of people who are not competent to judge such matters to believe; if that's the standard, let's invite Derren Brown to convince a studio audience that the universe was created by a six foot penis named 'Bob' and be done with it. These alternative scenarios have to be discarded on the basis of real objections for your argument to stand. Convince whomever you like with your slipshod debate tactics; the truth will overrule you in the end. Moreover, I don't consider you or myself or Genkaus truly competent to dismiss such alternatives on the basis of their seeming credibility to us alone. While I find myself rather incredulous about Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model (Wikipedia: ), making credible objections to his theory is so fucking far above your and my paygrade that it's laughable. Moreover, hypotheses like the multiverse are essentially unfalsifiable at this time, yet are built on solid and well established physics and mathematics and thus can't simply be summarily dismissed because you find the possibility inconvenient to your attempts to predate on the weak and the ignorant. (It too, is likely way above our collective paygrade.)

If your goal is as stated, simply to convince people who are liable to be persuaded by unsound arguments, well have at it. I'm interested in something more substantial.

As a simple matter of logic, if you exclude them for any other reason than their being unsound and untrue explanations of the facts, then you have constructed an argument that is logically invalid, and its conclusions are therefore of necessity a non sequitur. If you fail to demonstrate their implausibility or otherwise account for these hypotheses on substantive and material grounds, your conclusions are worthless.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here...but it would seem to apply to anything that could be said.

The fact that I'm having to dumb this down for you is not a point in your favor. (And the kudos that post received are good evidence that the problem is in fact, "just you.") But whatever.

Allow an analogy. Let's say that you have an amateur athlete, a runner, who you claim is a serious competitor in the 100 metre dash. I as the manager of our country's Olympic team, have never seen any convincing demonstration that your boy is fit to compete at the level required to be given a slot on the team. So you suggest a tryout. You'll run your boy against runners on my team to determine if even considering him is reasonable. So I call everybody out of the clubhouse, and ask my top 6 runners to line up at the starting line alongside your boy, to see if he's got game. You immediately start in with the whining and pleading and complain that you should only have to prove your runner's mettle against Johnson over there. Whether he is anywhere close to being able to compete against the others is irrelevant, according to you. Why you picked Johnson, I don't know; perhaps you know something specific about Johnson that I don't know (like that he has the stomach flu, or just lost custody of his daughter recently and is suicidally depressed). I don't know the specific reasons for your insisting on running only against Johnson, nor do I particularly care. If you're not willing to prove your boy against a representative sample of runners with demonstrated track records, you're not getting a place on my team, no matter how long and loudly you complain about how unfair it is.

---

I'm going to reiterate something you've already been told more than once. I am not an atheist, I'm not committed to a specific theory of origins, and matter of fact, I'm not even committed to metaphysical naturalism. Moreover, if I can be allowed a little lack of humility, I have a fairly sharp mind, am somewhat knowledgeable about these arguments, and am fairly scientifically literate. By all accounts, I am your ideal "uncommitted" and impartial witness. Yet you seem to discount my opinion with prejudice. Why? I suspect because what you mean by "uncommitted" and impartial is not someone who, given appropriate arguments, might agree to either position. No, your idea of uncommitted and impartial is defined as "someone whom you can get to agree with you." Anyone who actually disagrees with you has their opinion discounted by you with appeal to unfounded accusations of bias and prejudice. I may not always think as highly of my peers as perhaps I should, but I would hope that anyone whom you hope to convince has sufficient common sense to see through such sophistry.

And this brings out another telling point. When you're more concerned about debating meta-issues, such as what is and is not an invalid objection, what the motives of your opponent are, and so forth, most people with a lick of sense realize you're probably doing so to cover over some weakness or flaw in your argument. Again, in my experience, people are not stupid, particularly atheists. And that you have such a hateful, contemptuous attitude, legitimately or not, sends up red flags for your audience. (Take a tip from William Lane Craig; you seldom see him deliver his counter-arguments without a joke and his patented shit eating grin. There's a reason for this.) Whether you've got a case or not is almost irrelevant at this point, as you've managed to be boring, unlikable, and spend an inordinate amount of time attempting to argue side issues; if I were to judge your credibility on these facts alone, I'd suggest you've likely already lost the hearts and minds of those you hope to persuade. (In candor, I suspected that your arguments in "Let's say that science proves that God exists" thread were just a dry run to allow you to test your arguments and debating tactics, and it's entirely possible this thread itself is also simply another dry run to prepare you for some other engagement. But aside from the obvious repetition of arguments which were so overwhelmingly persuasive in the first thread *rolls-eyes* I have no proof.)

Ultimately, I don't personally care, I just don't like seeing logical principles mercilessly trampled by an idiot. I won't, for obvious reasons, but I could grant you all the fine tuning bullshit you've trotted out so far, and still be relatively certain of your not being able to make your case. So carry on with your disingenuous sophistry, aimed at momentarily appealing to the ignorance and stupidity of people who are not competent to judge such matters. It's an old fashioned notion, and one I have serious epistemological doubts about, but I believe that the truth will out. It doesn't matter how many people you are able to flip to your side with a clever pitch, because in time, the truth will rise above your mere temporal victories.

(See also: )