The Case for Theism

[genkaus]

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

Beat on mind that both have been refuted.

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.

Wrong actually. Using circumstantial evidence is supporting a 'theory' in the sense you use it and two theories, each supported by their own set of circumstantial evidence can and are used to support each other.

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?

Because that one personally does not believe in it does not preclude it from being a valid argument.

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.

No, its not. In fact, it is something that theists themselves tend to argue regularly when it comes to their god.