The Case for Theism

[The Grand Nudger]

The fourth line of evidence.

4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

In other words it has many of the same characteristics as things known to have been planned, engineered and designed and is why in effect scientists are able to reverse engineer the universe.

And? Chickens have feathers and so do ducks. Another case of what would be a great line of evidence if you were trying to make a case for something other than your god.

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.

Oh for fucks sake, the anthropic principle merely states that our existence would imply certain things about our universe - specifically what is necessary for our existence. There is a stronger version of that principle, f course. The fallacy to which you think this refers states that these things were somehow influenced by our set for the convenience of our existence.

The puddle remarks that the hole must have been made for him, that's the fallacy. The puddle remarks that the hole must be a certain shape when considering it's own, that's the principle. Get your shit together.

I don't think any of my opponents in this debate actually subscribe to the notion the universe had to be as it is, there isn't a shred of evidence to support that belief but my detractors only demand evidence of things they don't believe, theories that support their belief as in this case, don't require a shred of evidence. They also would like the triers of this case to believe that alternate theories minus any evidence and which they don't subscribe to somehow refute the theistic theory.

The weak anthropic principle does not state that it "had to be" but that it "has to be". The strong anthropic principle does not relate specifically to human beings, merely to observers of some kind. Making both weak arguments for some nebulous fucking god.

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.

I suppose we'll have to cross that bridge when anyone finds any fact which supports a theistic model. At present there are none, and you've failed to present any yourself as of yet to change that situation.

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.

Which theory competing with your hypothesis do you feel is in a situation where occams razor favors your position?

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

Precisely why your hypothesis is bankrupt, it has no such power.

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. 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?

We are in no way entirely like our universe. We are, in fact, wholly comprised of it in every particular. You are made of the same stuff as rocks and rutabagas. You are remarkably similar to both simultaneously.

The existence of life and mind from mindless lifeless forces is totally unexpected. 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.

If you were arguing for a living, biological god I'd humor you for a moment, but I bet you aren't willing to do that. If you aren't, you're also arguing for life from lifeless stuff. Mull that over for awhile. In any case, you might not predict such a thing, but why you wouldn't, and why your predictions should hold any weight at all has been left conveniently unexplained. We needn't predict a universe in any case. We sitting in a perfectly good one that requires no predictions in service of it's existence.

You've wasted quite a few words on an argument that could be stated in a much greater brevity, and has been roundly dismantled in just as few words. In any case, suppose I just capitulated to you in every particular of this argument for the lulz, congratulations, you've made a case for deism..not theism. Your god remains now, as it was before, absent.

This is the point, I suppose, where I ask whether or not it was these arguments that convinced you. Do these arguments form the justification for your faith in your theistic deity (whichever it may be)? Would dismantling these arguments also dismantle your faith?