The Case for Theism

[Esquilax]

I saw the links. Here's what you need to do, copy and paste some relevant excepts from the links and argue what it means to you particularly if its a theory you subscribe to.

And here I thought you were running this like a courtroom!

Listen, dude: if you want to demand by fiat that we don't use certain arguments then it's up to you to know what those arguments are before you do. I've given you proof to support a theory I introduced into evidence, read it or not at your leisure; the point is that I could do it. The multiverse hypothesis isn't some cockamamie bullshit I'm using as chaff to distract against your theory, it's a real scientific one that goes against the dichotomy you're trying to set up.

Given this, my disbelief or belief in it notwithstanding, you should change your arguments to fit the new evidence presented, especially now its credentials are on display. To do otherwise would simply be arrogant.

Its self evident but we can get back into that when I re-introduce the fine tuning fact.

If it was self evident you wouldn't have literally everyone here arguing against you.

You really think if we we're arguing this case before a hundred impartial people who are not committed theists or atheists that simply going to your rolodex of atheists 101 sound bites and replying argument from personal incredulity is going to persuade anyone?

If the shoe fits...

Besides, this isn't a courtroom. If it was, you'd be thrown out of it for attempting to be both the judge and the prosecution.

Notice the synonyms are disbelief, skepticism and doubt

I noticed it. I also noticed you're trying to misapply those words. Do you even know what the argument from personal incredulity is?

Let me help you: you are being skeptical, but rather than doing it right, which is to follow the evidence, you're being skeptical of the path that the evidence leads, because you just can't imagine how that would be so. The fallacy isn't skepticism itself, but that you're misapplying it. You're mistaking your own failure to correctly read the evidence, your own failure of imagination, as skepticism.

That, or you're being dishonest to try and score points.

and evidently what I lack is what atheists have in the ability of mindless, lifeless forces to produce life and mind is faith, can I hear an amen from the atheists in here? You've got to have faith brother to believe in the church of mindless forces. To question it is to have doubt which is a lack of faith which in the faith of atheism is a sin. You can question the existence of God all you want but how dare you question the prowress of mindless lifeless forces to create life and mind, those forces are our God and Creator and anyone who questions your faith or asks for evidence that mindless forces could do such is a heretic and a doubter and we can't have skeptics or doubters in the church of atheism. Can I get some amens from the atheists out there?

You're being childish. Stop it.

I think going back and looking will show which of us is comfortable in saying they don't know and which of us is dogmatically sticking to their position regardless of evidence.

The problem with so called skeptics is they are only skeptical of the things they don't believe are true. But the things they think are true they swallow hook line and sinker without a hint of skepticism or a modicum of critical (or least of all) free thinking.

Have you, perchance, read a single word that we've all been saying so far? Most of us aren't even arguing for a position one way or another. We haven't been able to get that far yet, because we haven't been able to get it through your thick skull that, god or not, you're premises are all terribly flawed. Even the fucking undecided among us are saying the same thing: you aren't demonstrating what you keep insisting you're demonstrating.

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.

You fucking liar.

The argument from ignorance goes "I don't know about X, therefore Y..."

The argument being used against you, rather, is "I don't know about X, and neither do you despite repeated assertions to the contrary, therefore rather than sticking to Y alone, what about the possibility of A, B or C?"

To which your response is that A, B, and C aren't allowed, and therefore Y must be true because nobody else has any evidence. The only one using the argument from ignorance here is you, but you're using such a strong and baseless variant here that I feel the need to qualify it: you're using the argument from willful ignorance.