The Case for Theism

[Drew_2013]

That reasoning is no more sound than

If I am Bill Gates, then I am rich.
I am rich, therefore, I am Bill Gates.

Bear in mind I have only submitted thus far two lines of evidence.

Thanks. People who identify as strong atheists are a minority among atheists, but they tend not to scurry. People who are weak atheists actually hold that position, so they don't need to scurry to reach it, we're already there. If you hang around long enough you might witness a strong atheist telling the weak atheists that it's ridiculous not to come right out and say Santa is impossible.

In my vast experience, strong atheists run for the shelter of weak atheism once broadsided. Moreover ask any so called weak atheist by what % they think its true no God exists the invariably claim to be 99.99 percent certain. I didn't think anyone could be that certain of anything.

The problem is you can't use a theory to support yet another theory.

I am not familiar with that rule, and see no reason why it should be the case. You seem to think theories are weak constructs by definition that are therefore weaker when combined.

You support a theory by citing facts that comport with your theory. That is evidence your theory is true. As I mentioned in the original post, I am making a 'legal' type case in favor of theism. In a court of law even in a civil case offering a theory in favor of a theory is inadmissible. Besides as a practical matter I have been repeatedly told atheists have come to their conclusions based on facts. Its not true of course but it is what they say.

It's an accurate assessment that most of us think it's more likely that no design or plan is behind the universe, but if you think we're trying to hide that, then you've misunderstood us.

If thats what atheists think they should say so and defend it.

Yes, but I wouldn't say that is happenstance. I'm not in a position to pick a winner among the various hypotheses, no one is, but I certainly consider it a strong possibility that the laws of physics are constrained within a liimited, possibly very limited range of values, and thus aren't accurately described as happenstance. I don't think the origin of life happened purposefully and I don't think I've said anything that could reasonably be interpreted as indicating that my position is anything other than that.

No you have been refreshingly forthcoming. We can continue this dialog later as it will come up again as I continue to make my case.

If you say there are either one or no cars in my neighbor's garage and I point out that maybe my neighbor has two cars in her garage, is that being disengenuous in your eyes?

It is if you yourself don't actually believe there are two cars. Why raise a possibility you yourself don't believe is true other than to be argumentative? Secondly this is a oranges to grenades analogy. Unlike two cars in a garage which is a real possibility we're familiar with the notion something could be neither by plan or by happenstance is a foreign concept. Please submit some real life example (like two cars in a garage) where some phenomena is neither the result of planning or happenstance?

Why? On what basis should the laws of nature make sense?

On the basis that they've all made sense so far.

I was thinking more on an epistemological basis. But I will touch on this more later.

Why should we think it's possible to not have any rules? Conceiving of a universe without any rules is like conceiving of a theodic God.

Again I can guarantee this topic will come up again so let revisit it then.

Particularly uncharitable, since I actually agree with Krauss that it's highly possible that the basic laws of the universe must be what they are. Although it doesn't matter if I really believe it, only that it be a genuine alternative, if the point is that there are more alternatives than two.

In my experience atheists will play either side of this coin depending on the argument. They may raise the theorhetical possibility (again atheists seem to abhor citing facts in favor of their case) that this is one of a infinitude of universes with varying characterisics and we (by happenstance) live in the one that allows our existence. If their having a bad hair day they may opt (again another theorhetical possibility they themselves may not think is true) that for some reason the universe had to be as it is. I will later show that neither possibility solves the issue there attempting to refute.

If you're comfortable with an infinite regress, okey dokey, but since God is popularly posited as an answer to an infinite regress of causality, you have to kick the legs out from under one of the main reasons given for suspecting the existence of a creator God in the first place, if you want to go that route. I'm just pointing that out, he says, before you start to go on about how I'm just raising phoney objections to hide and obfuscate.

I am doubtful of an infinite regression of events and I think a naturalistic only explanation of our existence suffers more than a supernaturalistic explanation does. I'm pointing out the argument is moot because if true theism is true. Also theism is a belief in regards to how the universe and humans came to be, religion attempts to answer questions about the nature of God. I'm not promoting or defending any religious beliefs.

I don't know and I'm comfortable saying so. I haven't heard a proof saying an infinite regress is impossible and objections that we could never get to the present that way strike me as variations on Zeno's Paradox. Despite the paradox, we still get where we're going. It all starts going over my head when I consider that we have to talk about different times than the one we experience in this universe to talk about anything 'before' (not the applicable word since 'before' requires time to happen in, but such are the limitations of English) our space/time began.

Exactly it seems inescapable that a naturalistic only explanation can account for our existence. It isn't that a infinite regression of events couldn't occur per se the proof that its not the case is the fact we have reached the events were now experiencing. To do so we'd have to cross an infinite number of events to reach this time.

Just because an attribute has been attributed to a divinity doesn't mean only divinities can have it. You're well into semantics now. The Christian God says he's a jealous God, does that make jealousy a divine attribute now?

Lets say a supernatural attribute then.

Now for the dichotomy fix I promised. You offered happenstance and purposeful creation as the dichotomy, and I pointed out a physically necessary chain of causality as an alternative to those two. From what you've said since, I think it would serve your point equally well to make the alternatives purposeful and non-purposeful. That's pretty binary, and I think it doesn't subtract anything important from your point. What do you think?

It works for the sake of discussion. However I'm still skeptical of the necessary chain of casuality (just to be a nitpicker). How would we differentiate a necessary chain of casuality from design?