The Case for Theism

[genkaus]

Thus far I have submitted two lines of evidence that I have argued favor belief in theism.

1. The fact the universe exists.
2. The fact life exists.

And now I will offer a third fact.

3. The fact sentient life exists.

As I mentioned in the OP I'm not a theist just because there are facts that comport with theism, the same facts seem to contradict the atheist narrative (that the universe, life and sentient life we're not created on purpose) that however such came to be, no personal agent intended it to happen, it wasn't by plan or design. I'll let the reader decide if minus plan, design or intent whether the result is by happenstance since that seems to be a major sticking point for some. I would argue it is still a tall order for mindless lifeless forces to produce something totally unlike itself both life and mind minus any plan, intent or knowledge* of how to do it.

A lot of atheists say we should look for the simpler naturalistic explanation for things such as life and sentience and we should avoid claiming a miracle happened. But which scenario is really less miraculous, that the universe, life and sentience is the result of plan and design or the result of mindless forces that didn't intend such to occur but happened anyway? Lets compare it to the existence of a computer, would it be less miraculous to say a computer is the result of design and engineering or it was the unintended by product of the laws of physics that unintentionally created a computer? Before anyone blows a gasket I know in response you're going to say its an unfair comparison because we know a computer was designed and engineered. The point is in trying to avoid the supernatural miracle of a Creator causing the existence of life and sentience it would seem a greater miracle is being called for by claiming that mindless, lifeless forces without plan or intent caused something greater than itself to exist. Is anyone going to argue that sentience and mind isn't greater than the source it is alleged to have come from?

*For the sake of argument I'm going to say lack of knowledge but could something cause something to happen without the information needed to do so?

So far, I've refuted two lines of evidence and I'd refute the third one, but really, there isn't any new argument here. If you are going to use the same old combination of false dichotomy and argument from incredulity, then you might as well consider all your future arguments refuted. Here you once again start with assuming that plan and design or mindless forces are the only two possibilities (again, without any evidence for that theory) and since you simply cannot believe the latter to be possible, the former it true. This line of reasoning has been refuted many times over, has been shown to be invalid multiple times and if you keep repeating it, then we might just make a sticky post detailing the refutation and link to it while replying to any future arguments.