If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

Salesman,

That's the exact same thing as me saying...
If Sauron didn't exist, I would expect to find nothing. You and I wouldn't be alive. There would be no stars or planets, etc etc etc.
We are alive and things exist, therefore Sauron must exist.

Except I didn't make the 'therefore Sauron (or God) must exist' . I didn't attempt to make a proof kind of statement out of it. I just offered an opinion.

The opinion that if God isn't real, you wouldn't expect to find those things. If that's a misrespresentation of your statement, please explain how.

For instance we could shoehorn the belief that mindless forces always existed or poofed into existence uncaused out of nothing kind of like magic and point to the existence of the universe that is what happened. The reason we could shoehorn these possible explanations is because the existence of the universe does demand some explanation and one of those three explanations is probably right.

1. The universe was intentionally caused and designed by a personal agent or Creator commonly referred to as God.
2. Mindless forces always existed in some form or another and over time (even if time didn't always exist) became the universe we now observe.
3. Mindless forces materialized out of nothing uncaused and turned into the universe we now observe.

We could shoehorn them all in because 'universe exists' supports each of them equally.

Someone is probably going to respond it could be some reason we haven't even thought of or could articulate but whose going to argue in favor of a position we can't articulate or fathom?

One of the most common arguments offered by atheists to justify their non-belief is the notion there is no evidence, not a shred, not a smidgen not one iota that a Creator (God) exists. I would say this is a foundational sacrosanct doctrine of atheism.

Because you can't make it three posts without saying something about atheism that isn't true?

Its also baloney. I went into this in depth in another thread but evidence are merely facts that comport with a belief.

That is absolutely NOT what evidence is. Mere comportment with belief is the minimum one would expect from reality for the belief to not be proven false, but multiple exclusive beliefs can be in comportment with reality as it is known thus far. To be evidence, something must support a particular conclusion and NOT other, mutually exclusive conclusions, equally.

Quoting myself from another thread.

One of the chief objections to theism cited by atheists is they claim there is no evidence in favor of theism. I am often re-assured that they are very open minded and would be happy to evaluate any such evidence if there was any. I agree that if indeed there is no evidence in favor of a claim that is a valid reason to decline belief in such a claim (although it by no means disproves such a claim). There is often confusion about what evidence is and what proof is. Evidence are facts or objects that support a conclusion.

That support a PARTICULAR conclusion. If the same 'evidence' can be used to back other mutually exclusive conclusions equally, it is not actually evidence at all.

For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is evidence that supports the conclusion the deceased was murdered. Typically the knife and pictures of the knife in the back of the deceased would be entered into evidence. A lot of evidence is circumstantial evidence.

Yep. If you had something that supported the conclusion that there is a Creator God and did not equally support any other conclusion, that would be evidence in favor of the conclusion that a Creator God is real. If substantiated, it would become global news, especially in theological circles.

From Wikipedia

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt)."

From free dictionary.com

"One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence."

The existence of the universe alone is evidence that God exists and theism is true.

Nothing you copy-pasta'd supports that statement.

[thee-iz-uh m]
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 ).

Theists attribute to God the existence of the universe and I think all of us would agree the universe exists.

Naturalists attribute to natural forces the existence of the universe, and I think all of us would agree that the universe exists. I think all of us would agree that natural forces exist as well.

However that's just a foundational claim such as if I accused someone of murder, the first thing I would do is produce a body. However that evidence by itself would only prove someone died. I'd have to offer evidence the death was intentionally caused and then offer evidence that ties the accused to the murder. As it stands the existence of the universe (by itself) isn't better evidence then the alternate explanations.

Which is what makes it not evidence for the conclusion you want to reach.

2. Mindless forces always existed in some form or another and over time (even if time didn't always exist) became the universe we now observe.
3. Mindless forces materialized out of nothing uncaused and turned into the universe we now observe.

Explanation 2 and 3 are just as viable as the 1st explanation and the existence of the universe is evidence in favor of theism just as it is the other two explanations.

Just like the other two explanation are in favor of naturalism, I think you mean to say.

This is why the argument there is no evidence in support of theism isn't just a bad argument...its false.

One could not know that from the example you've given, in which the 'evidence' supports the opposite conclusion as well as it does yours.

I know I'm going to get a lot of feedback because the belief there is no evidence (facts) in favor of theism is damn near the first commandment of atheism.

1. There shall be no evidence in favor of theism!

That's only true as long as theists continue to fail to provide a single example of actual evidence that amounts to more than hearsay of supposed (and inconsistent) revelations. In your example, your supposed evidence does not lead to the conclusion that your proposition is true rather than the alternate propositions. It's an excellent example of something that might superficially seem to be evidence but actually is not.

And although you did not spell it out in the form of a syllogism, that is not actually necessary for your argument to contain a fallacy, in this case the fallacy of assuming the consquent.

If P, then Q.
Q, therefore P.

If a Creator God is real, the universe exists.
The universe exists, therefore God is real.

If I am Bill Gates, I am rich.
I am rich, therefore I am Bill Gates.

Why is it critical? Because if in fact there is no evidence of theism, theistic belief can be marginalized as nothing more than a faith claim.

And you wouldn't like that. You finding that undesireable has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is true or not.

God forbid if the atheist admits there is evidence in favor theism that would be tantamount to an admission there is an intellectual evidential reason to think theism is true.

Your appeal to motive also has nothing to do with whether your claim there is evidence that supports the conclusion that some Creator God is real is actually true. You can shoot us down in a heartbeat with something that actually constitutes evidence (and probably become a celebrity in the process). I'm sure if your fellow theists agreed you have found the magic bullet to making theism demonstrably reasonable, they will rally around you in droves. Unfortunately for you, those among your fellow theists whose opinions carry the most weight are sometimes actually well-versed on the topics of logic and evidence, and are very careful not to use arguments with holes they can't plug, and tend to be much more comfortable then you with the idea that their faith actually rests on faith.

Rhythm

Oh....kindly demonstrate that this is true? Do you have some argument as to the non-existence of Santa?

Of course if you define Santa as a mystical personal being that delivers presents world wide on Christmas eve with a flying sleigh lead by reindeer I can beyond a reasonable doubt provide a far superior explanation for the presents...can't you?

You've assumed that you're the one who gets to define Santa. Or rather, I suspect that seeing the force of the analogy between God and Santa, you're trying to deftly avoid the pit that you are suspended over due to having assumed the burden of proof on the matter.

I can easily disprove the existence of your Creator God if I'm the one who gets to define it.

My parents have told me all my life that Santa is real, and they wouldn't lie to me. Of course, if you take Santa too literally, you don't understand the sophisicated arguments for Santa's existence that persuade intelligent believers. Santa doesn't really deliver all the presents supernaturally via reindeer-drawn flying sleigh. That's symbolic. Santa mystically inspires millions of individual acts of generosity, kindness, and good will on Christmas Day. His workshop isn't at the North Pole, it's 'North of the North Pole' in a realm beyond time and space, which allows him to inspire all the world's celebrators of Christmas apparently simultaneously, visiting each one (invisibly and immaterially) on the same day.

If you don't believe this, it's likely that the spirit of Scrooge has hardened your heart to its self-evident truth.

Or, as a more airy alternative that's actually in circulation: Santa is the 'spirit of generosity', that part of us that is kind and giving. You believe there's a part of us that is kind and giving don't you? That's Santa, so you believe in Santa after all!