The Case for Theism

[Drew_2013]

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.

Even though the weight and preponderance of scientific data is in favor of the universe coming into existence (at least in its present form) appox 13.7 billion years ago, I didn't argue from that point of view, I merely stated the universe exists which is a foundational evidence to the claim God created the universe. I couldn't make the claim someone murdered someone without a dead body or evidence someone was killed. Evidence is synonymous with facts. Facts that are probative (comport with a claim) are admissible. Secondly whether or not the existence of something is reason to believe it was caused is in the eye of the beholder. When we consider that everything we can think of in existence can be traced back to a cause we have no reason to make an exception of the existence of the universe.

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.

Again whether they equally do so or not is in the eye of the beholder. As an atheist committed to naturalistic explanations of course you would opine a naturalistic explanation is equally valid. But if by your own admission they are equally valid how does that refute my theory?

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.

You don't actually subscribe panspermia do you? I know you're going to claim it's irrelevant whether you subscribe to the objections you want others to consider. Again I never made the argument that life began to exist. Let me refresh your memory.

2. The fact life exists

Again this might seem like a trivial fact but I don't think anyone disputes life exists. If life didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to debate whether we owe our existence to a Creator, its the fact life exists that raises the question whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend to cause life or even cause the existence of a universe that allows life in the first place. There is no condition that needs to true for atheism to possibly be true. There are conditions that need to occur in order for us to have a debate about whether a Creator of the universe exists. Two of those conditions are a suitable place for us to live and for life to exist. No one would postulate God doesn't exist therefore I expect a universe with life to exist. The existence of the universe and life are red flags that lead folks to question the narrative that we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend either the universe or life, yet inspite of neither the desire, the intent or the plan to create life, without knowledge of how to do it mindless forces stumbled blindly upon the formula to create life and cause a universe that allows life. Moreover if we are to believe the atheist narrative, lifeless mindless forces created something totally unlike itself...life. Yet the only way we have observed life coming about is through life. We have yet to observe life coming from non-life. The theory is that's how it came about but evidently we haven't been able to figure out using intelligence how to cause life that mindless forces are alleged to have produced without trying or knowing how.

Also there is irrefutable observable repeatable evidence that life comes from life.

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.

Again whether such alternate theories are better or worse is in the eye of the beholder. Of course you being a born again atheist you are going to prefer naturalisitic theories (even ones you yourself don't think are true) over a supernaturalistic explanation. If by your own admission the god theory is no better (but no worse) how do such competing theories refute my theory. Why by the same token doesn't my theory refute your theory?

Again, existence of sentient life is better explained through evolution and the simple fact of its existence is not sufficient to establish anything transcendent.

Why did evolution care if sentience emerged? Whether or not the fact of it is sufficient reason to infer the existence of a Creator is in the eyes of the beholder. People can decide for themselves if the better explanation is that mindless lifeless forces without plan or intent created something totally unlike itself life and mind or whether something known to exist (life and mind) caused it. In either event your opinion doesn't refute (disprove) anything. It just means you disagree but we already knew that.

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.

How does showing my theory is equilvalent to other theories refute my theory? If as an atheist you admit my theory is equivalent not only have you not refuted it, you have agreed its equally as valid as competing theories. But in the final analysis, it doesn't matter what you or I think it's what impartial people think that matters.