The Case for Theism

[Esquilax]

Actually like many I was brought up in Catholicism which I loathed. Then when I moved out from my parents I discarded any religious belief including belief in the existence of God. Then in my late 20's I re-examined the issue and wondered about my own existence, the existence of others and the existence of the universe and how it is we came about and ultimately came to the belief that we owe our existence to a Creator. Its an opinion, I could be wrong but I think it is the better explanation.

This is not a new story. Maybe try something a little fresher than the old "I used to be an atheist but then I saw the light!" chestnut.

Any rational person including most atheists think we're either the result of plan and design by a personal agent or were the unintended result of some naturalistic process that didn't plan or intend us to exist. I don't think even you believe otherwise.

That's as may be, but I've already demonstrated that no matter how many people believe in one or the other, there's more than two options. The fact that you continue arguing from the position that this is a binary choice is frankly breathtakingly ignorant.

That's rich an atheist calling me rude. Lets see if we can settle this once and for all. Do you believe (not do you know of theories) that our existence and that of the universe is the result of or exists in some other fashion that is neither the result of plan and design or some unguided naturalistic process that unintentionally resulted in our existence?

Like I said, I don't know. I think that the evidence in favor of a non-created universe is stronger than the reverse, but I'm open to the possibility that either idea could come through with stronger proof and tip those scales. After reading through all your evidence so far, I still think that; nothing you've said has been anywhere near strong enough to alter my views.

Speaking for yourself you can claim that being an atheist just means you don't know or you're ignorant. But your mistaken if you think thats what the majority of atheists think and I could take a survey to prove it. The vast majority of atheists will claim to be nearly certain no God was involved in the cause of the universe because according to them there is no God, God doesn't exist. They will concede they're not certain how the universe came about or how life came about but they are extremely confident that some naturalistic unguided mindless method unintentionally caused the universe and life to exist and eventually this will be confirmed. I suspect that is what you actually believe but you prefer to pettifog the issue.

Do you happen to know why we're extremely confident of that? Because that's where the evidence leads. That's where the scientific consensus seems to point. The people who are actually researching this, using mathematics and science and tools so far out of my range of goddamn experience as to genuinely leave me in awe of their skills? Those people aren't finding evidence for a creator god. Every day they're discovering more things about the universe, getting us closer and closer to the next big discovery, and for every mystery they solve, everything they do discover that someone like you has claimed is the work of one god or another, do you know what the common factor is? When they find the answer, the real one, no god was involved.

We can be confident in the knowledge of people who've devoted their time and effort to studying these things, and who have constructed and participated in a scientific community that can be trusted to keep itself honest and to refine even the best of theories. These people find no god, and yet a guy like you, one man without any due peer review and going against the consensus of a community that makes physics its bitch time and again just for the fun of it, loftily decides that his (already refuted) idea of evidence is so much more superior than any of the work those guys can do.

That's why we're confident in what science tells us, and consequently, why the opinions of a single forum goer who presupposes the existence of a god in the majority of his "evidence" isn't really impressing us. Can you really blame us for taking the word of real scientists over you, Drew?