The Case for Theism

[Drew_2013]

I'm not going to elaborate on this any, but in case it hasn't been mentioned, there's another alternative which needs to be mentioned. (Thanks to Min for the idea.) If one wishes to demonstrate that the universe is finely tuned for the existence of life on this planet, then one has to exclude the possibility that life on this planet originated elsewhere. (This hypothesis is known as .) It does little to demonstrate the uniqueness of conditions here on earth if you can't even demonstrate that the life in question came from here. Without that premise, one is calculating the fine tuning of a planet whose fine tuning may not even be relevant to the question. (It gets worse, if you can believe it. Perhaps life on this planet is uniquely matched to these conditions, not because an intelligent agent designed the universe, but because an intelligent extra-terrestrial race designed this planet's life to be suited to these conditions, or chose these conditions to match some pre-existing life form or life forms.)


Bon appetit, Drew.

I don't have to exclude possibilites that aren't in evidence. Secondly the line of evidence I have submitted thus far are

1. The existence of the Universe
2. The existence of life
3. The existence of sentient life.

Later I will re-introduce the argument from fine tuning as I make my case from facts in favor of theism why don't you wait until then to make your objections.

---

Typically, you miss the elephant in the room. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid response to these questions and requires no faith whatsoever.

I'd be happy with that response. It means their belief in the non-existence of God is an argument from ignorance. Just as I always suspected.

---

The only 'facts' in evidence here are that the universe exists and that the life exists. They comport as much with the 'theories' of eternal universe, circular universe, multiverse etc. as they do with yours. So, really, we don't need to provide any additional evidence when your own proves you wrong.

In your eyes I was 'proved wrong' before the case began. I know you love your own opinion but we already know your opinion in this case. I realize it may be a punch to your ego but I'm not attempting to convince you of anything.

And the objection would be overruled - since in this case those alternate 'theories' comport with the evidence you provided.

The three facts I've stated thus far
1. The existence of the universe
2. The existence of life
3. The existence of sentient life

These facts are not what one would predict if atheism is true. No one would say I believe a Creator of the universe doesn't exist, therefore I predict the existence of a universe, the existence of life and the existence of sentient life. Those are facts atheism has to explain away or offer counter theories of how such came about in support of their belief God doesn't exist. Counter theories don't cut the mustard. The only theory allowed in a court of law is the one theory the case is about. I can't offer unproven theories in favor of my theory. If I were to go to a judge and say your Honor I plan to introduce a theory in favor of my theory there is no God it would be inadmissible. Now in closing arguments if you think the existence of life, or the existence of the universe or sentient life somehow supports your belief there is no God have at it. Or by all means submit counter facts that you think support your case, that would be extremely refreshing.

This only serves to illustrate a point I have made. Atheists typically claim they are led by facts to the conclusion there is no God. Its not true, they are led by theories that comport with their beliefs and they're willing to offer theories in defense of their belief even if in fact they don't actually believe the theory they are offering is true! It would appear atheists believe God doesn't exist based on the fact its possible God doesn't exist. In other words its a faith proposition. But prove me wrong offer facts!

Evidence:

Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.

One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence [facts] is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence [facts] that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence [facts] that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence.

Since I am claiming God created the universe, life and sentient life it's obvious those facts are relevant to the case.