This debate is about one of the oldest philosophical questions sentient humans have asked since the time they stopped spending all their effort and energy on just surviving. That question is how did our existence come about? How did the universe which hosts our existence come about? Why is there something rather than nothing? Are we the result of plan and intent by a Creator or is our existence and that of everything else the result of mindless forces that somehow came into existence or that always existed and eventually resulted in our existence without any intention of doing so. My opponents typically hate to frame the question this way because they like to pretend that they don't have a claim, just a lack of belief in the opinion we are the result of a Creator. They don't like dictionary definitions either but according to the dictionary theism is:
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism ).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism ).
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Theists believe a personal agent known as God caused the universe and subsequently human existence. Atheists believe there is no God and therefore natural or non-God forces are responsible for our existence. The truth is no one knows the truth of the matter. Theism and atheism is an opinion about the source of our existence and the universe. In rebuttal you'll hear a bogus argument about how this is a positive belief versus a negative belief and how one side has the burden of evidence and the other side doesn't. It's a dodge my opponents employ so they can pretend they don't have a case to make or a burden to shoulder. Assuming you believe the universe and humans exist and that our existence came about in some manner, if you don't believe a personal agent known as God caused and planned such an existence, then you do believe mindless mechanistic forces minus plan or intent caused our existence. To render an opinion in regards to this case, you need to weigh the two competing claims. Since humans weren't around to witness the universe come into existence both sides rely on what we do know to make their respective case.
The case in favor of theism is based on five facts and argumentation from those facts. Evidence are facts that support an opinion. If there are facts that support an opinion then there is evidence in favor of that opinion.
1. The fact the universe exists.
If neither the universe or life existed the claim my opponents make that there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true and there would be no reason to postulate a Creator. That alone wouldn't mean God doesn't exist, it only means there wouldn't be any evidentiary reason to think one does. However, the universe does exist and even if there was no life in the universe its existence alone would cause reason to ask how did it get there? What if anything caused it? In contrast it's not necessary for the universe to exist to believe God doesn't exist, there is no condition necessary for atheism to be true. There is not one piece of evidence or condition that needs to be true to claim God doesn't exist. There are conditions necessary for us to have evidentiary reasons to believe God exists.
2. The fact life exists
If the claim atheism is true, neither life or the conditions necessary for life came about by plan or design. Whatever forces and conditions that caused life to exist didn't intend for it to happen. To the best of our knowledge only sentient beings can purposely plan and design something to happen. Therefore the existence of life is at best the unintended by product of mindless forces that neither intended life to exist or for that matter the conditions that allow life to exist. More over if the atheist narrative is correct, lifeless mindless forces caused something totally unlike itself to exist...Life. I could point out that scientists have failed to duplicate the conditions alleged to have caused non-living matter to turn into living matter, but my opponents would jump all over me and claim I am making a God in the gaps argument. This type of argument is where there is a gap in our knowledge such as how life started or how the universe came to be and so God did it is inserted into the gap of our understanding. However, while my opponent can spot a God in the gaps argument a mile away, they are oblivious to naturalism in the gaps arguments they use profusely. Just as a God in the gap argument is to insert the explanation of God where there is a gap in our knowledge, a naturalism in the gaps argument is to assume a naturalist explanation in the gaps of our knowledge. It isn't necessary for a theist to employ god in the gaps argument, but it's absolutely essential for my opponents to argue naturalism in the gaps. They claim that life began by some natural unguided unintended process but since we don't know what that process is...insert naturalism in the gaps. They assume some natural unguided process is responsible for the universe to come into existence but since we don't know what that process is insert naturalism in the gaps. There are several reasons atheists can spot a god in the gaps argument but have a blind spot when it comes to naturalism in the gaps arguments. Since they 'know' God doesn't exist some naturalistic explanation must be true and therefore a naturalism in the gaps explanation is justified. I call that circular reasoning, my opponents call it freethinking. One last factor, as of this writing the only known, observable repeatable method of causing life is through procreation. It is an indisputable fact that life comes from life. This is important because my opponents claim they are lead to their conclusions on a factual basis.
3. The fact sentient life exists.
If the world according to atheism is to be believed, mindless forces also caused something else completely unlike the source it is alleged to have come from; sentient intelligence to exist. Mindless forces that can't think, dream, feel, create, design or act autonomously created conscious self aware sentient beings that can dream, feel, create, design and act autonomously. Something vastly more complex and sophisticated was created by something vastly less complex and sophisticated minus any plan or intent to do so. In other words it just happened to have happened.
As sentient humans we have progressed to the point where we can create on a computer virtual worlds. We can create AI avatars to interact in the worlds of our creation and as sentient beings we can create the laws of nature as we see fit in such virtual worlds. This is the closest model we have to creating a universe with unique laws of physics. In those worlds we are the transcendent gods who caused them to exist. We don't have to ask if the God model is possible, we simulate such ourselves.
4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, is amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
My opponents often speak in glowing terms of how the laws of physics alone can account for all we observe. Why are there rocky planets that evolved from second generation stars? Because of the laws of physics and fusion that causes simple matter to turn into more complex matter. But it's not because something more complex came from something simpler, it's because something very complex, the laws of physics caused matter to act in such a fashion. The fact the universe has laws of physics that cause matter to act in a predictable manner is what allows the scientific approach to work. The laws of physics could be looked at as a code or blueprint that compels matter to act in a certain manner. It's a fair question to ask why are there any laws of nature at all, least of all ones that caused the existence of sentient humans and support their existence. The theist would argue there are laws of nature that allow and even caused the existence of planets, solar systems, stars, galaxies and ultimately life because they were designed to do so. My opponents have a variety of naturalism in the gaps explanations, all of which if true conflict with each other and none of which they necessarily believe are true. The logic is simple...since they know God doesn't exist one of these counter explanations must be true (or perhaps some other naturalism in the gaps explanation they haven't thought of yet is true).
A. The universe for some unknown (but naturalistic reason) had to be as it is. Although my opponents raise this naturalism in the gaps explanation, I suspect it's the explanation they believe in the least. At best all it does is the push the envelope back one step and we'd still wonder why if a universe comes into existence minus any plan or design there is some unknown characteristic that causes the universe to be as it is. Secondly, if the universe for some reason had to be as it is, how could you tell the difference between that and a universe that was designed to be as it is?
B. This is one of an infinitude of universes with varying characteristics and we find ourselves in the one with the right attributes for life. This is the ultimate time and chance naturalism in the gaps explanation. We don't know if there are other universes or how they came about or if they do have varying characteristics. My opponents who claim to be led by the facts to conclude there is no God, are in reality lead by dubious theories they don't even claim to believe in.
C. We got lucky. If it's true there is no planner designer who is responsible for the existence of the universe this is the most likely explanation regardless of how unlikely it is that by chance alone mindless forces blindly stumbled upon the formula to create planets, solar systems, stars and galaxies minus any intention of doing so.
D. My personal favorite. The universe popped into existence uncaused out of nothing. I like this one the best because my opponents often deride theism as invoking magic yet offer this counter explanation as if it isn't magical.
There are many other counter naturalism in the gaps explanations that all hold something in common, none of them are known to be true and even the person raising the objection may not actually believe they are true.
5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
In his book 'Just Six Numbers' the deep forces that shape the universe, highly respected astrophysicist (and atheist) Martin Rees explains each constant in depth and the consequences if any of these constants were slightly different. So mind numbingly narrow is the degree of precision needed that as a result he concludes this is one of an infinitude of universes all with different characteristics and as a result we live in the universe with the right 'numbers'. A simpler explanation that doesn't needlessly multiply entities (to infinity in this case) is that the constants were intentionally designed to fall within a range that allows planets, stars and galaxies to exist.
If atheists were actually looking for evidence that supports the belief that a personal agent caused and designed the universe to support life this would be such evidence. It is an earmark of design when personal agents such as humans create contrivances such as a computer or a car or a nuclear plant, that in order for the contrivance to work properly, it must fall in a narrow range of characteristics for the contrivance to work as designed.
Martin Rees's Six Numbers
Martin Rees, in his book Just Six Numbers, mulls over the following six dimensionless constants, whose values he deems fundamental to present-day physical theory and the known structure of the universe:
N≈1036: the ratio of the fine structure constant (the dimensionless coupling constant for electromagnetism) to the gravitational coupling constant, the latter defined using two protons. In Barrow and Tipler (1986) and elsewhere in Wikipedia, this ratio is denoted α/αG. N governs the relative importance of gravity and electrostatic attraction/repulsion in explaining the properties of baryonic matter;[3]
ε≈0.007: The fraction of the mass of four protons that is released as energy when fused into a helium nucleus. ε governs the energy output of stars, and is determined by the coupling constant for the strong force;[4]
Ω ≈ 0.3: the ratio of the actual density of the universe to the critical (minimum) density required for the universe to eventually collapse under its gravity. Ω determines the ultimate fate of the universe. If Ω>1, the universe will experience a Big Crunch. If Ω<1, the universe will expand forever;[3]
λ ≈ 0.7: The ratio of the energy density of the universe, due to the cosmological constant, to the critical density of the universe. Others denote this ratio by \Omega_{\Lambda};[5]
Q ≈ 10– 5: The energy required to break up and disperse an instance of the largest known structures in the universe, namely a galactic cluster or supercluster, expressed as a fraction of the energy equivalent to the rest mass m of that structure, namely mc2;[6]
D = 3: the number of macroscopic spatial dimensions.
N and ε govern the fundamental interactions of physics. The other constants (D excepted) govern the size, age, and expansion of the universe. These five constants must be estimated empirically. D, on the other hand, is necessarily a nonzero natural number and cannot be measured. Hence most physicists would not deem it a dimensionless physical constant of the sort discussed in this entry. There are also compelling physical and mathematical reasons why D = 3.
Any plausible fundamental physical theory must be consistent with these six constants, and must either derive their values from the mathematics of the theory, or accept their values as empirical.
The counter arguments are essentially the same as above.
When we create a hypothesis that attempts to explain a phenomena that wasn't directly observed, we propose models and see which one lines up best with the available facts and data. The model that best explains the observed phenomena and concurs with the available facts is the preferred model. The theist claim is that the universe and the attendant laws of nature were not the result of some mindless process that fortuitously got it right but instead was the product of planning and design. Theism offers an explanation that accounts for our existence and the existence of the universe, why sentient life exists and why the conditions and characteristics necessary for such to obtain resulted.
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism ).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism ).
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Theists believe a personal agent known as God caused the universe and subsequently human existence. Atheists believe there is no God and therefore natural or non-God forces are responsible for our existence. The truth is no one knows the truth of the matter. Theism and atheism is an opinion about the source of our existence and the universe. In rebuttal you'll hear a bogus argument about how this is a positive belief versus a negative belief and how one side has the burden of evidence and the other side doesn't. It's a dodge my opponents employ so they can pretend they don't have a case to make or a burden to shoulder. Assuming you believe the universe and humans exist and that our existence came about in some manner, if you don't believe a personal agent known as God caused and planned such an existence, then you do believe mindless mechanistic forces minus plan or intent caused our existence. To render an opinion in regards to this case, you need to weigh the two competing claims. Since humans weren't around to witness the universe come into existence both sides rely on what we do know to make their respective case.
The case in favor of theism is based on five facts and argumentation from those facts. Evidence are facts that support an opinion. If there are facts that support an opinion then there is evidence in favor of that opinion.
1. The fact the universe exists.
If neither the universe or life existed the claim my opponents make that there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true and there would be no reason to postulate a Creator. That alone wouldn't mean God doesn't exist, it only means there wouldn't be any evidentiary reason to think one does. However, the universe does exist and even if there was no life in the universe its existence alone would cause reason to ask how did it get there? What if anything caused it? In contrast it's not necessary for the universe to exist to believe God doesn't exist, there is no condition necessary for atheism to be true. There is not one piece of evidence or condition that needs to be true to claim God doesn't exist. There are conditions necessary for us to have evidentiary reasons to believe God exists.
2. The fact life exists
If the claim atheism is true, neither life or the conditions necessary for life came about by plan or design. Whatever forces and conditions that caused life to exist didn't intend for it to happen. To the best of our knowledge only sentient beings can purposely plan and design something to happen. Therefore the existence of life is at best the unintended by product of mindless forces that neither intended life to exist or for that matter the conditions that allow life to exist. More over if the atheist narrative is correct, lifeless mindless forces caused something totally unlike itself to exist...Life. I could point out that scientists have failed to duplicate the conditions alleged to have caused non-living matter to turn into living matter, but my opponents would jump all over me and claim I am making a God in the gaps argument. This type of argument is where there is a gap in our knowledge such as how life started or how the universe came to be and so God did it is inserted into the gap of our understanding. However, while my opponent can spot a God in the gaps argument a mile away, they are oblivious to naturalism in the gaps arguments they use profusely. Just as a God in the gap argument is to insert the explanation of God where there is a gap in our knowledge, a naturalism in the gaps argument is to assume a naturalist explanation in the gaps of our knowledge. It isn't necessary for a theist to employ god in the gaps argument, but it's absolutely essential for my opponents to argue naturalism in the gaps. They claim that life began by some natural unguided unintended process but since we don't know what that process is...insert naturalism in the gaps. They assume some natural unguided process is responsible for the universe to come into existence but since we don't know what that process is insert naturalism in the gaps. There are several reasons atheists can spot a god in the gaps argument but have a blind spot when it comes to naturalism in the gaps arguments. Since they 'know' God doesn't exist some naturalistic explanation must be true and therefore a naturalism in the gaps explanation is justified. I call that circular reasoning, my opponents call it freethinking. One last factor, as of this writing the only known, observable repeatable method of causing life is through procreation. It is an indisputable fact that life comes from life. This is important because my opponents claim they are lead to their conclusions on a factual basis.
3. The fact sentient life exists.
If the world according to atheism is to be believed, mindless forces also caused something else completely unlike the source it is alleged to have come from; sentient intelligence to exist. Mindless forces that can't think, dream, feel, create, design or act autonomously created conscious self aware sentient beings that can dream, feel, create, design and act autonomously. Something vastly more complex and sophisticated was created by something vastly less complex and sophisticated minus any plan or intent to do so. In other words it just happened to have happened.
As sentient humans we have progressed to the point where we can create on a computer virtual worlds. We can create AI avatars to interact in the worlds of our creation and as sentient beings we can create the laws of nature as we see fit in such virtual worlds. This is the closest model we have to creating a universe with unique laws of physics. In those worlds we are the transcendent gods who caused them to exist. We don't have to ask if the God model is possible, we simulate such ourselves.
4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, is amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
My opponents often speak in glowing terms of how the laws of physics alone can account for all we observe. Why are there rocky planets that evolved from second generation stars? Because of the laws of physics and fusion that causes simple matter to turn into more complex matter. But it's not because something more complex came from something simpler, it's because something very complex, the laws of physics caused matter to act in such a fashion. The fact the universe has laws of physics that cause matter to act in a predictable manner is what allows the scientific approach to work. The laws of physics could be looked at as a code or blueprint that compels matter to act in a certain manner. It's a fair question to ask why are there any laws of nature at all, least of all ones that caused the existence of sentient humans and support their existence. The theist would argue there are laws of nature that allow and even caused the existence of planets, solar systems, stars, galaxies and ultimately life because they were designed to do so. My opponents have a variety of naturalism in the gaps explanations, all of which if true conflict with each other and none of which they necessarily believe are true. The logic is simple...since they know God doesn't exist one of these counter explanations must be true (or perhaps some other naturalism in the gaps explanation they haven't thought of yet is true).
A. The universe for some unknown (but naturalistic reason) had to be as it is. Although my opponents raise this naturalism in the gaps explanation, I suspect it's the explanation they believe in the least. At best all it does is the push the envelope back one step and we'd still wonder why if a universe comes into existence minus any plan or design there is some unknown characteristic that causes the universe to be as it is. Secondly, if the universe for some reason had to be as it is, how could you tell the difference between that and a universe that was designed to be as it is?
B. This is one of an infinitude of universes with varying characteristics and we find ourselves in the one with the right attributes for life. This is the ultimate time and chance naturalism in the gaps explanation. We don't know if there are other universes or how they came about or if they do have varying characteristics. My opponents who claim to be led by the facts to conclude there is no God, are in reality lead by dubious theories they don't even claim to believe in.
C. We got lucky. If it's true there is no planner designer who is responsible for the existence of the universe this is the most likely explanation regardless of how unlikely it is that by chance alone mindless forces blindly stumbled upon the formula to create planets, solar systems, stars and galaxies minus any intention of doing so.
D. My personal favorite. The universe popped into existence uncaused out of nothing. I like this one the best because my opponents often deride theism as invoking magic yet offer this counter explanation as if it isn't magical.
There are many other counter naturalism in the gaps explanations that all hold something in common, none of them are known to be true and even the person raising the objection may not actually believe they are true.
5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
In his book 'Just Six Numbers' the deep forces that shape the universe, highly respected astrophysicist (and atheist) Martin Rees explains each constant in depth and the consequences if any of these constants were slightly different. So mind numbingly narrow is the degree of precision needed that as a result he concludes this is one of an infinitude of universes all with different characteristics and as a result we live in the universe with the right 'numbers'. A simpler explanation that doesn't needlessly multiply entities (to infinity in this case) is that the constants were intentionally designed to fall within a range that allows planets, stars and galaxies to exist.
If atheists were actually looking for evidence that supports the belief that a personal agent caused and designed the universe to support life this would be such evidence. It is an earmark of design when personal agents such as humans create contrivances such as a computer or a car or a nuclear plant, that in order for the contrivance to work properly, it must fall in a narrow range of characteristics for the contrivance to work as designed.
Martin Rees's Six Numbers
Martin Rees, in his book Just Six Numbers, mulls over the following six dimensionless constants, whose values he deems fundamental to present-day physical theory and the known structure of the universe:
N≈1036: the ratio of the fine structure constant (the dimensionless coupling constant for electromagnetism) to the gravitational coupling constant, the latter defined using two protons. In Barrow and Tipler (1986) and elsewhere in Wikipedia, this ratio is denoted α/αG. N governs the relative importance of gravity and electrostatic attraction/repulsion in explaining the properties of baryonic matter;[3]
ε≈0.007: The fraction of the mass of four protons that is released as energy when fused into a helium nucleus. ε governs the energy output of stars, and is determined by the coupling constant for the strong force;[4]
Ω ≈ 0.3: the ratio of the actual density of the universe to the critical (minimum) density required for the universe to eventually collapse under its gravity. Ω determines the ultimate fate of the universe. If Ω>1, the universe will experience a Big Crunch. If Ω<1, the universe will expand forever;[3]
λ ≈ 0.7: The ratio of the energy density of the universe, due to the cosmological constant, to the critical density of the universe. Others denote this ratio by \Omega_{\Lambda};[5]
Q ≈ 10– 5: The energy required to break up and disperse an instance of the largest known structures in the universe, namely a galactic cluster or supercluster, expressed as a fraction of the energy equivalent to the rest mass m of that structure, namely mc2;[6]
D = 3: the number of macroscopic spatial dimensions.
N and ε govern the fundamental interactions of physics. The other constants (D excepted) govern the size, age, and expansion of the universe. These five constants must be estimated empirically. D, on the other hand, is necessarily a nonzero natural number and cannot be measured. Hence most physicists would not deem it a dimensionless physical constant of the sort discussed in this entry. There are also compelling physical and mathematical reasons why D = 3.
Any plausible fundamental physical theory must be consistent with these six constants, and must either derive their values from the mathematics of the theory, or accept their values as empirical.
The counter arguments are essentially the same as above.
When we create a hypothesis that attempts to explain a phenomena that wasn't directly observed, we propose models and see which one lines up best with the available facts and data. The model that best explains the observed phenomena and concurs with the available facts is the preferred model. The theist claim is that the universe and the attendant laws of nature were not the result of some mindless process that fortuitously got it right but instead was the product of planning and design. Theism offers an explanation that accounts for our existence and the existence of the universe, why sentient life exists and why the conditions and characteristics necessary for such to obtain resulted.
