The Case for Theism

[The Grand Nudger]

Rhythm

Since you're actually attempting to make a case for what you believe I'll respond to your post.

No Drew, I'm not. I'm trying to help you understand why you have failed to make your case. Whatever I believed, if I believed anything at all would be irrelevant, it's not a binary situation whereby if you were wrong I would be right or vice versa. You have to make your own case...and if you start to deflect over what you imagine to be the case of another - you're already listing away from doing the work required.

Lets start with interaction first. When it comes to mindless lifeless forces we observe interacting we notice they only interact when acted upon, they don't initiate their own action because they don't have volitional will to decide to do something. Sentient beings like humans for instance can initiate actions that subsequently lead to reactions.

And? Sentient humans can also be acted upon without any involvement from their will. I'm sure you think this goes somewhere, I assure you it doesn't.

Since lifeless mindless forces don't initiate action or reaction how did the series of actions and reactions we observe in the universe ever start to begin with? But I digress.

We don't know, and by we...I mean both of us.

To your point, you actually unwittingly make my point for me. If you start with A and B (a lot of A's and B's) and they mindlessly without plan or purpose interact you will probably get every combination of A and B possible. But all you could hope to get is combinations of A and B because thats what you started with. You couldn't hope to produce out of just A and B the rest of the alphabet or believe the combination of A and B would produce a novel.

No, I don't unwittingly make your point, your wits have failed you, and your faith has attempted to shoehorn what I've written into it's own narrative. Every combination of A and B possible very accurately describes chemical evolution, whereby A and B produce AB - an entirely different substance with it;s own unique properties - itself getting thrown back into the mix. What about this is difficult to understand? AB did not exist before the interaction. Sure, our very limited minds (and eyes) see the a and b and go - "well thats not different" - but if you could manage, just for a moment, to realize that we're not talking about a's and b's...I doubt it would give you much trouble. A and B would produce a novel full of A and B and every permutation thereof. I'm not sure what you think your objection is here?

Because they are at best mindless lifeless forces that don't care if planets exist, if stars exist, if galaxies exist or least of all if sentient life exists.

I'll give you the benfit of the doubt and assume that you honestly didn't realize that I was responding to the second part of that statement...lol

How would mindless lifeless forces acquire the information content needed to cause such things to exist?

Interaction, thats a;ready been explained to you. Ask again, you'll get the same answer.

Its the same reason when we drop a box of 200 toothpicks from 50 feet and it produces a random unpredictable pattern,

No, it doesn't. It produces a something that we perceive as random (and random patterns is an amusing one btw) because we cannot predict it.

because the mindless forces that interact don't care if they produce a knowable symetrical pattern.

Whether or not they care if they produce a pattern and whether or not they produce a pattern wouldn't exactly be the same discussion, now would it. The benefit I gave you above is wearing thin.

If I dropped the box of toothpicks and they produced clear as a bell the writing 'Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country' would you in response say well why wouldn't they spell out such a message?

You haven't explained why this couldn't happen. How many times do you plan to drop that box of toothpicks? In any case, this puts the poker to your argument more succinctly than anything else in your post. You've either knowingly or unknowingly smuggled your conclusion into the argument you hope to support it with. You're asking me for a desired outcome, a desired pattern. Yes Drew, your "random" box of matches would have patterns in the debris. How is this different from the patterns you observe in the universe around you (mind you, there would be patterns there, in that pile, for precisely the same reason that there are patterns in the universe ) Until you can resist the urge argue in circles...it's going to be rough going. In a nutshell, your entire argument implies a designer by invoking design (in the same way you couldn;t seem to form this question without invoking yourself as the designer and the pattern in the matches the intended outcome), and then concludes that there's a designer. You must establish the existence of this designer, you must establish the existence of this design. These are your first steps. It's still all ahead of you even then, as you'll have to turn your designer into a god, then that god into your god. This is what would be required to make a case for theism.

What are your other expectations from mindless forces? Could mindless forces given enough time and chance produce the Mona Lisa?

They did.....you really don't get it do you?

Or the works of Shakespeare?

Yes.

Or a super computer?

Yes

Why not?

Why not what?

If we had no other explanation for such things and the creator of them wasn't in sight

We don't, and there isn't any "creator" in sight. It's not even an issue of not having any other explanations - that would imply that the explanations we have aren't good, well evidenced, well argued ones. Which they are.

why wouldn't it according to you be credible that mindless forces create things of arguably less sophistication than a universe with its laws of nature and sentient beings?

I don't recall ever saying that they couldn't. We're not having a discussion about what mindless forces might or could have doen, but what they did, aren't we? After all, we're talking about our universe, no hypothetical required.

So if we came to a planet in another solar system and found bulidings and vehicles and roads and such

If your god built buildings, roads and vehicles I doubt we'd be having this discussion. He didn't though, did he, so the point in this aside would be what?

but no living beings you'd conclude those things must have occurred by natural forces that didn't intend their existence?

Meh, if we're talking about an alien world - its entirely reasonable to accept that what you might think looks alot like a building is no such thing. In the same way that here, on our planet, things that look like they must have been built often aren't.

I look around my office and see an airconditioner a couple of laptops and a telephone but I don't see the creator of those things anywhere in site,

You don't?

I guess I'll assume that mindless forces that didn't intent to create such things caused them, because in our everyday life mindless forces are always going about creating useful things.

Well, that's true, they are going about "creating" useful things - but in the case of phones - if you wanted to be myopic about it - you'd be engaging in hilariously unreasonable behavior.

I opened up the computer and viola no creator was inside...guess mindless forces must have caused it to exist.

Again, to be myopic, you'd be engaging in the same hilariously unreasonable behavior.

So in other words in the world of atheist logic, a universe that appears to have been intentionally designed to cause and support life

If you could find a universe like that it would be easier to have a discussion about it. Get to work.

is actually evidence that mindless forces without plan or intent caused such because if God caused it God would have done so in a on going miraculous manner that woudn't require the conditions needed to support life.

Not sure where you got the first bit from, but yeah - I would question the notion that some creator god has to toe the biological line. Wouldn;t you? Or is that just something you'd rather leave unquestioned?

That story will go over fine with your fellow atheists. Not sure how convincing it would be to impartial folks not committed to either view point.

Whose story, mine, or the one you concocted from it?

Were you going to make your case at any point? You do realize that this is what is required. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Everything I know is horribly, utterly wrong. I have it all fucked up somehow. Now that this is done (and to be blunt, it shouldn't have had to come to this, you should have known that no matter how wrong I might be that you wouldn't be right by default. Now your workload is going to be massive, you'e going to have to establish the entirety of all the things and facts you like, and how we arrive at them...from the very bottom) - you can begin to explain to me how you know you have it right.

You understand, yes? This has always been the failure of the creationist position. Incapable of making their own case, narrowly focused on attacking the explanations offered by others. Now whether or not those criticism have value, meh, I don't care to bicker with you over idiocy. The crux of it, is that it wouldn't matter if they were. If all you have, in -support- of your own argument is that "it all looks designed to me" then I'm going to have to tell you that this is just a failure of your imagination - and even if it were "designed"- you still don't have your case. " I just don't understand how-......." Tough titty, it isn't as though you couldn't just educate yourself, ffs.