The Case for Theism

[genkaus]

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.

First of all, do you really not see the difference between coming into existence and coming into existence in its present form?

Secondly, you can, in fact, make an argument for murder even without the dead body.

Thirdly, only evidence with probative value is admissible - not any fact that happens to comport with the claim. And there is a big difference. Any evidence that doesn't contradict the claim can be said to comport with it - and yet be judged as irrelevant and inadmissible. The evidence must prove something about the claim itself and here, it doesn't.

Fourthly, whether or not something was caused is not a matter of opinion but of fact. It is not in the eye of the beholder.

Fifthly, the reason to make an exception is that everything else we can think of exists within the context of the universe.

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?

I know you probably suffer from some sort of reading disability, but atleast try to make sure that you get my arguments right before coming up with half-assed rebuttals.

Firstly, whether or not they are equally valid is not a matter of opinion. If the evidence in question supports them as well as supporting your theory, then they are equally valid - no matter what anyone may behold.

Secondly, the fact that they are equally valid shows that your assertion about the evidence having a probative value in proving your claim is false.

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.

Personally, no.

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.

Two things.

1. With regards to life coming from non-life, study the hypothesis of abiogenesis which evidence that it is possible. Your statement about life only coming from life is far from refutable.

2. Take a look at the bolded phrase. Is your grasp of logic so poor that you do not realize that they imply a beginning? Anyway, if life did not being to exist then there is no cause for it. If you are arguing a cause, then it has to begin to exist. This is not the logic a five-year old should fail at.

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?

Firstly, I'm not a born again atheist, I was born one the first time.

Secondly, which theory is better is not in the eye of the beholder. The one with greater explanatory power is better.

Thirdly, when I'm making a case for my theory, then you can present yours as a rebuttal, but rest assured, I can and will present facts to show how my theory explains things better than yours. It just isn't required here.

Fourthly, its your arguments that are refuted. Your theory itself is invalidated. Try and understand the difference.

Why did evolution care if sentience emerged?

It did not. Why do you assume caring was required?

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.

Once again - no, it is not in the eye of the beholder. Even if people decide for themselves, it'd simply make them wrong. Which theory is better depends upon which of them explains the evidence better, i.e. explains more facts more accurately.

In either event your opinion doesn't refute (disprove) anything. It just means you disagree but we already knew that.

No, but it is not my opinion that is presented as a rebuttal.

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.

What it does show is that you have not made the case for theism that you have set out to do. The refutation of your arguments shows that your theory has no ground to stand on and there is no reason for someone impartial to judge it as correct. The fact that there is no given reason to go for any of the alternates is irrelevant.