The Case for Theism

[genkaus]

Refutation means to prove something is wrong. Could you restate how you refuted (proved wrong) the conclusion I have drawn from three lines of evidence thus far?

You really can't read, can you? I mean, it's just one simple sentence, representing one simple concept, a sentence that you quoted to boot and still you manage to get it wrong.

I don't have to refute the conclusion, I simply have to refute your argument for the conclusion. With your argument proven wrong, your conclusion stands invalidated. It might still be true, but then so could anything else with absolutely no evidence for it. And it is not my burden to prove it wrong once I've established your failure to prove it right.

1. The existence of the universe.

I assume you agree the universe does exist. How did you refute (prove wrong) the possibility a transcendent Creator caused it to exist?

By establishing that
a) Mere existence of something is not sufficient to prove that it had a cause. Given that we do not know of any other universes, we have no reason to assume that this one was caused, much less that it was caused by a transcendent being.
b) Other theories, such as eternal universe, multiverse, stable time loop universe, cyclical universe and causeless universe are all equally supported by and explain the fact of the universe existing. Evidence that supports everything is evidence for nothing.

2. The existence of life

How did you refute (prove wrong) the possibility a transcendent Creator caused it to exist?

Again, by establishing that
a) Mere existence of life is not sufficient to even establish that it was caused. You first have to establish that it did not exist at some point - a task made even more difficult if panspermia is considered.
b) Existence of life is better explained by alternate theories such as abiogenesis which actually have some other evidence to them.
c) Even setting aside the better theories, your god hypothesis is no better at explaining life than other hypotheses such as multiverse or eternal universe.

3. The existence of sentient life

How did you refute (prove wrong) the possibility a transcendent Creator caused it to exist?

Do I even need to repeat myself? Again, existence of sentient life is better explained through evolution and the simple fact of its existence is not sufficient to establish anything transcendent.

If you actually did prove that some cause other than God or at least proved it wasn't God who caused the existence of these things I will agree you have proved your case.

Your agreement is immaterial. I don't have to prove my case since I am not presenting any case. That is how burden of proof works - both in logic and in law. You are the one making a "Case for Theism" and failing miserably at it. All I have to do here is to point out all the ways you fail to make the case. All I have to show are all the other theories that equally or better support the evidence provided.

By the way, I asked you last time if in your mind its an irrefutable fact God doesn't exist or is it a belief God doesn't exist?

And I answered - it is a justified belief.