The Case for Theism

[Cyberman]

No, because the burden of proof is on the person proposing the existence of the entity extra to the "naturalistic explanations" that already account for observed reality.

There are no verified naturalistic explanations that account for how the nature we observe came into existence. I agree the universe exists and we exist but you don't really have any idea how that came about do you?

I don't need to. You're the one building the case for theism; you supply the evidence.

Do you think we are the result of a never begining endless recession of events that ultimately resulted in sentient beings who wonder how the heck we got here? Its not just theists who make a claim about how the universe and humans came about. Thiests claim we are the result of a Creator who intended our existence, atheists claim it was not. Thats what atheism means not or without God. Supposedly you have facts and data to support your opinion just as I do.

Again, I don't need facts and data to support my lack of belief in your claims, just as I don't need to buy special non-food to not eat, or wear un-wings not to fly. Atheists as a rule don't claim that everything didn't come about as a result of some creator, intelligent or otherwise; we simply ask that theists who make such claims provide evidence for why they, and by extension we, should believe them.

You're attempting a case, to be sure, but cogency is for the audience to decide.

I stand corrected.

You're welcome.