RE: The Case for Theism
April 4, 2013 at 8:00 pm
(This post was last modified: April 4, 2013 at 8:33 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Pretty sure everyone's already been over this...but.
1. The existence of the universe isn't evidence for the accuracy of either a belief in god - a lack of belief in god - or an active disbelief in god.
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?
-Who would be doing the asking?
What if anything caused it? In contrast it's not necessary for the universe to exist to believe God doesn't exist,
-It strains the mind to see how anyone would be around to believe anything if the universe did not exist Drew.
there is no condition necessary for atheism to be true.
-There is one, for atheism to be true a person cannot believe in a god. Similarly, if we wanted to use your argument from sympathetic definitions line of reasoning, for atheism to be true, there would have to be no god.
There is not one piece of evidence or condition that needs to be true to claim God doesn't exist.
-Well, that's true, people can claim whatever they like. The same is equally true of theism.
There are conditions necessary for us to have evidentiary reasons to believe God exists.
-Agreed (in a rough sort of way)
You could probably trim the entirety of 1 down to that last line. But I guess then you couldn't call it "The universe 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.
-Well, that doesn't actually follow.....but you'll probably find plenty of atheists who would be comfortable with it anyway. If you were worried about getting called out you could modify it by adding "by plan or design -from a god-"
Whatever forces and conditions that caused life to exist didn't intend for it to happen.
-Again that doesn't follow and for the same reason as above. Trim or modify?
To the best of our knowledge only sentient beings can purposely plan and design something to happen.
-You'll probably be reminded that some animals are planners, toolmakers, etc. Whether or not you would lump them in as sentient is up to you
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.
-Not sure what the therefore is doing there, therefore from what? If the atheist position is correct - the only thing that cannot be the cause for any of this is a god. Anything else is game. Mind-ful- forces are still fine. Do I believe that a mind was behind all of this? No, but that doesn't matter, because it's your argument and you want to keep it nice and tight, right?.
More over if the atheist narrative is correct, lifeless mindless forces caused something totally unlike itself to exist...Life.
-You;ve been correctedon this so many times it's painful to see it here. Life is not totally unlike "the universe". It's made entirely of it.
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.
-Because you would be. So trim that?
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.
-You're starting to list towards attacking the position of another instead of establishing your own. In any case, the position of science is that "we don't know"
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.
-I think, before you go off the rails here, that you might want to familiarize yourself with the subject - it's gone far beyond an assumption. I'm also going to have to point out that if this is a case for theism - a case against science or any particular field of study isn't going to g very far.
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.
-Actually, the answer is, again, "we don;t know"
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.
-That's going to be a very inconvenient statement for you later. You're going to have to address how god procreated, and some parts of it's biology...when you get around to making a case for theism.
Ultimately, I'm not sure where you where going to start supporting theism in any of this, so maybe this entire section can be trimmed?
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.
-Your problem with this being what, precisely?
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.
-So, programmers ergo god model possible? Sorry to burst your bubble. But the programmer doesn't have to be a god. If you're hoping to establish that this universe is a simulation, well....that's going to require something extra
Again, I don't see where the case for theism is even advanced by anything in this section -which feels like a subsection of 2, quite frankly. Trim?
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.
-Physics not being one of my bigger interests or strengths someone else will have to fact check this one for you.
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.
-Then argue it.
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).
-Again, you won't make a case for theism by attacking the position of another. I cannot (and should not have to) stress this any more.
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.
-Going to be snipping the majority of this one, nothing to objectionable - wording could be more precise.
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.
-Here again I see nothing objectionable
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.
-The trouble, especially if you;re going to follow the above with this...is that you haven't done any lining up at all. To make it worse, you haven't even attempted to explain why theism offers any explanation - let alone the best explanation for observed phenoma....nor have you demonstrated that theism concurs with any available facts. Now, I would suggest that this probably has something to do with you spending all of your time talking about atheism and naturalism........
1. The existence of the universe isn't evidence for the accuracy of either a belief in god - a lack of belief in god - or an active disbelief in god.
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?
-Who would be doing the asking?
What if anything caused it? In contrast it's not necessary for the universe to exist to believe God doesn't exist,
-It strains the mind to see how anyone would be around to believe anything if the universe did not exist Drew.
there is no condition necessary for atheism to be true.
-There is one, for atheism to be true a person cannot believe in a god. Similarly, if we wanted to use your argument from sympathetic definitions line of reasoning, for atheism to be true, there would have to be no god.
There is not one piece of evidence or condition that needs to be true to claim God doesn't exist.
-Well, that's true, people can claim whatever they like. The same is equally true of theism.
There are conditions necessary for us to have evidentiary reasons to believe God exists.
-Agreed (in a rough sort of way)
You could probably trim the entirety of 1 down to that last line. But I guess then you couldn't call it "The universe 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.
-Well, that doesn't actually follow.....but you'll probably find plenty of atheists who would be comfortable with it anyway. If you were worried about getting called out you could modify it by adding "by plan or design -from a god-"
Whatever forces and conditions that caused life to exist didn't intend for it to happen.
-Again that doesn't follow and for the same reason as above. Trim or modify?
To the best of our knowledge only sentient beings can purposely plan and design something to happen.
-You'll probably be reminded that some animals are planners, toolmakers, etc. Whether or not you would lump them in as sentient is up to you
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.
-Not sure what the therefore is doing there, therefore from what? If the atheist position is correct - the only thing that cannot be the cause for any of this is a god. Anything else is game. Mind-ful- forces are still fine. Do I believe that a mind was behind all of this? No, but that doesn't matter, because it's your argument and you want to keep it nice and tight, right?.
More over if the atheist narrative is correct, lifeless mindless forces caused something totally unlike itself to exist...Life.
-You;ve been correctedon this so many times it's painful to see it here. Life is not totally unlike "the universe". It's made entirely of it.
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.
-Because you would be. So trim that?
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.
-You're starting to list towards attacking the position of another instead of establishing your own. In any case, the position of science is that "we don't know"
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.
-I think, before you go off the rails here, that you might want to familiarize yourself with the subject - it's gone far beyond an assumption. I'm also going to have to point out that if this is a case for theism - a case against science or any particular field of study isn't going to g very far.
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.
-Actually, the answer is, again, "we don;t know"
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.
-That's going to be a very inconvenient statement for you later. You're going to have to address how god procreated, and some parts of it's biology...when you get around to making a case for theism.
Ultimately, I'm not sure where you where going to start supporting theism in any of this, so maybe this entire section can be trimmed?
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.
-Your problem with this being what, precisely?
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.
-So, programmers ergo god model possible? Sorry to burst your bubble. But the programmer doesn't have to be a god. If you're hoping to establish that this universe is a simulation, well....that's going to require something extra
Again, I don't see where the case for theism is even advanced by anything in this section -which feels like a subsection of 2, quite frankly. Trim?
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.
-Physics not being one of my bigger interests or strengths someone else will have to fact check this one for you.
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.
-Then argue it.
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).
-Again, you won't make a case for theism by attacking the position of another. I cannot (and should not have to) stress this any more.
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.
-Going to be snipping the majority of this one, nothing to objectionable - wording could be more precise.
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.
-Here again I see nothing objectionable
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.
-The trouble, especially if you;re going to follow the above with this...is that you haven't done any lining up at all. To make it worse, you haven't even attempted to explain why theism offers any explanation - let alone the best explanation for observed phenoma....nor have you demonstrated that theism concurs with any available facts. Now, I would suggest that this probably has something to do with you spending all of your time talking about atheism and naturalism........
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
