The Case for Theism

[Mister Agenda]

1. That some unknown law of physics dictates that if a universe exists it by necessity must produce one like we observe. In which case they would be unwittingly supporting the anthropic principal that some of my opponents claim to be a fallacy.

The weak anthropic principle is not a fallacy.

2. That this is one of an infinitude of universes of varying characteristics and naturally we would wind up in the universe that supported and allowed our existence. Even though these two theories are mutally exclusive don't think for a moment that will stop them from raising the objection anyway. In the world according to atheism, if a fact supports the theistic model any alternate theory regardless of evidence, regardless if they are mutually exclusive and regardles of whether they actually believe in the counter theories they are offered in rebuttal. My opponents are usually fond of Occams razor unless it weighs against one of their pet theories. The explanation that multiplies the least entities is the explanation the universe was designed and created for the purpose of supporting human life at least compared to this counter theory that multiplies entities infinitely.

In the world according to science, plausible hypotheses can't be rejected until they have been falsified. Unfalsifiable hypotheses can't be properly considered at all.

When considering these two alternatives it should be weighed which has the more explanatory power.

It is true that magic offers the most explanatory power, as it can 'explain' anything, but for scientific purposes, an explanation that explains anything at all, whether it's the case or not, isn't really an explanation.

If one were to believe a designer creator of great power exists one might predict that if such a creator could, they might create a universe, that causes life and sentient life to exist just as we create virtual worlds on computers.

One might with equal justification predict that such a creator might create a universe made out of chocolate with sentient life (also made out of chocolate). We can certainly create virtual realities made out of virtual chocolate.

Who would say a Creator designer doesn't exist therefore I predict that mindless, lifeless forces without plan or intent would cause a universe to exist that results in the creation of something totally unlike itself, life and sentience? The existence of life and mind from mindless lifeless forces is totally unexpected.

Well, there wasn't anyone around to expect it before it happened.

No one would predict that mindless irrational forces would cause a universe that is explicable in mathematical terms, that has to the best of our knowledge inviolable laws of nature that make it predictable and knowable and to the best of our knowlege uniform across the universe.

Yes, we were all very surprised when it turned out that no matter how deeply we look, all we find is mindless forces, all the things with minds are relatively recent.

And you're still affirming the consequent. As long as the premise of your argument remains 'If God, then the universe' and your conclusion remains 'the universe, therefore God'; your argument will be fallacious. You may as well say 'if poptarts are made of plastic, the unverse' followed by 'the unverse, therefore poptarts are made of plastic'.

No matter how many ways you say it, your argument will be this fallacy until you can have a premise in the form of 'If X, then God'.