The Case for Theism

[genkaus]

A theory is an idea or a concept that may or may not be true. To support a theory you cite facts that comport with that belief which is considered evidence in favor of your belief (or hypothesis). You don't improve your lot to offer yet another unproven idea in support of your hypothesis since the theory your offering is also suspect.

You do realize that we are talking about scientific theories right? The concept of proven/unproven do not apply there. Rather, if something can be considered as proven within science, a theory is it. Which makes perfectly rational for one theory to be used as support for another. In fact, it is done all the time.

Who made an unjustified exemption?

Nobody. That's why it's not a fallacy of special pleading.

No one is actually offering evidence that the universe and life could be the result of some cause that was neither planned or by happenstance, they just want to argue its a false dichotomy based only on hypothetical scenarios that they don't actually believe either. There is a saying among lawyers, when you have the facts in a case you argue the facts, when you don't you argue smoke and mirrors.

First of all, no evidence is required for that hypothesis, because at this stage, your position is no better than a hypothesis itself. You haven't provided any evidence for the statement that planning and happenstance are the only two possibilities - so that's a hypothesis itself and all that is required to prove it false is presenting other possible hypotheticals. Don't delude yourself into thinking that your arguments have anything to do with facts.

Want to take a stab at explaining that?

Naah... I don't think you are capable of understanding that.

If any dichotomy appears to be false on the face of it the bolded statement above does seeing how it's contradictory.

Except, the bolded statement is not a dichotomy.

If I made that statement I'd be hounded from here to kingdom come.

Because you wouldn't justify it in the very next statement.

By the way I agree humans do project their own nature into things which is in part why the methodology of science was created.

Yes - to prevent that from happening.

You must be using the atheist dictionary again where words take on whatever meaning is convenient at the moment. What the dictionary mistakenly seems to think that necessity means is when something or someone is forced to do something by compulsion.

None - that is my argument. Nature is what it is by necessity - not because it was compelled by something or someone external. Try and keep up.