The Case for Theism

[Angrboda]

Apophenia,

If you care to respond to my last post to you, I'll respond to your last post.

---

It's a shame you have so few friends you consider a Wikipedia article to be a friend. I couldn't be more dishonest then you a person who claims to be fair minded and impartial yet only attacks what I write. Let's talk about honesty and being disingenuous. You have stated to me several times you're not an atheist and you claim below if a person isn't an atheist there a theist, I don't believe that's true and I don't think you do either but it is what you say. Since according to you you're not an atheist then you are a theist. Yet you have disagreed with nearly every line of evidence or argument I have made in spite of the fact you evidently agree with my conclusion that we owe our existence to a transcendent creator of great power. After all this is what you wrote ' If they aren't "fellow atheists," then they must be theists' in fact according to you, you found that amusing. Now I am taking you at your word and that you couldn't be so damn stupid that you made this statement but forgot you yourself don't fall into either category. Since you are a theist, but disagree with the evidence I have submitted and it appears you disagree with any evidence in favor of theism, why not tell everyone on this board your reasoning, logic and evidence that leads you to believe in theism? Even if you disagree with my reasons and evidence, maybe I'll agree with yours.

My theological views are not relevant except insofar as they refute your claim that only dyed-in-the-wool atheists find your arguments unpersuasive. And seeing that your inquiry seems more strategic than social, I feel fully justified in rejecting your request; it's not my job to help you make your case, and my specific theological views won't help you any.

I don't necessarily disagree with the articles you cited about self-organization and self-order. The fact such occurs is due to the laws of nature , the same reason there are planets, solar systems, stars and galaxies.

The question is why would mindless forces that don't care if there are planets, stars or galaxies or care if self-organization or self order occur or care if life exists or sentient humans exist wind up in an extremely narrow set of characteristics to allow such to occur.

Allow what to occur? Life, or the specific sentient life we know about? According to the theory of evolution, while the characteristics of this universe and our earth 'allowed' for the development of complex life forms from simpler ones, nothing in it suggests that our specific sentient life had to evolve. That it did so, while fortuitous for us, tells us nothing special about the conditions themselves, nor whether they are necessary for the development of any sentient life in general. As noted previously, you've picked up the telescope from the wrong end and are inferring that the conditions of the universe are special because we, uniquely, are special; however, this latter claim remains to be demonstrated. Until you demonstrate this to be the case, your claim that the conditions themselves are special has no foundation.

I typically get two rebuttals from atheists (although they have repeatedly stated they don't necessarily believe the rebuttals are true) how much stock should I or anyone put in a rebuttal that the person making it won't commit to whether they believe it or not.

Rebuttal 1. Maybe for some unknown (but naturalistic reason) the universe had to be the way we observe it. In other words according to this theory (which they don't actually believe is true) if a universe exists at all, it must for some reason be in a configuration that allows and even causes sentient human life to exist. Isn't that special that mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend for us to exist nevertheless are compelled by some unknown law of nature ... to produce something unlike itself, life and sentience. No wonder atheists don't actually believe this nonsense.

As noted previously, the universe hasn't created anything unlike itself yet, as it has been noted we are made out of the same stuff as the rest of the universe. Given that the first self-replicating molecules necessary to start evolution going likely would not be far removed from basic star stuff, it appears clear that you have a beef with the idea that evolutionary processes can produce intelligent life from non-intelligent life; if so, then I suggest you make an argument against evolution, as abiogenesis is not concerned with the creation of mindful life from mindless life, evolution is. If your argument is solely with abiogenesis, then we have a clear god of the gaps argument.

Moreover, there is nothing about the conditions of this universe which "compelled" the evolution of sentient life — or any life — so your rebuttal is moot.

Rebuttal 2.

Now they do a complete 180 degree reversal on the previous objection they don't believe in and claim that our universe maybe one of an infinitude of universes with differing characteristics and we by that old gospel standby time and chance happen to be in the one that allows our existence. They probably lack belief in this claim also but it is objection worthy as is any potential rebuttal regardless of evidence, something they always demand of others but never require of themselves. But since you evidently share my belief in theism even though you disagree with the evidence I submit I suppose it doesn't really matter in the long run.

This is remarkable given that the author you are using in support of your arguments, Martin Rees, is actually a proponent of this view. Anyway, as outlined earlier, if you fail to provide reasons for discounting a valid alternative interpretation of the evidence or alternative theory, your argument runs afoul of the law of the excluded middle and renders its conclusions without force. I personally find the multiverse hypothesis, whichever one you prefer, to be an entertaining hypothesis, but lacking empirical support for preferring it over other potential hypotheses, I'm content to wait and see. You don't have that luxury, as a consequence of the structure of your argument.

---

As a side note, as noted multiple times, while the physics is interesting, it's not your biggest problem. That problem is demonstrating that these conditions warrant an inference to design. Having studied the intelligent design arguments in-depth personally, I know that you can't get there from here. You'll need at least a #6 to to add to your facts in evidence, namely a method of differentiating design from non-design, robustly and reliably, from premises 1 through 5. This I predict you will not be able to do. Nor do I really expect you to do so, as it has defeated much better minds than yours.