The Case for Theism

[Drew_2013]

The trivial fact of life's existence is not sufficient to even establish that it had a cause.

I didn't say anything about a cause, I just stated its existence.

If the only known fact was that life exists then there would be no basis to assume that there was even a time when it didn't exist and therefore had to be caused or brought into existence.

Do you actually subscribe to this notion that life always existed?

Another underhanded attempt to sneak in arguments that have already been refuted. It has been established that the existence of universe is not sufficient grounds to raise the question of a cause of the universe

I have an idea...how about we stipulate that everything you say has in my opinion been refuted and everything I say has in your opinion been refuted so we can get on with our respective arguments.

Again - the fact that we are not aware of the natural mechanism for the cause of life is not evidence that there was anything unnatural about it. In pretty much the same way that if a coroner cannot figure out the cause of death does not automatically mean murder.

The point is people can decide for themselves whether the existence of the universe and the existence of life is best explained by mindless lifeless forces caused a universe and life to exist without any plan or intent or knowledge how to do so or whether the reason the universe and life exists is because it was planned and designed to occur. Your right in that we don't know for sure how life or the universe came to be and I'm not attempting to assert God into the gaps of our knowledge. I am citing the fact those two things exist regardless of how they came about. Its atheists who have to explain away those facts or propose some hypothetical (but naturalistic) reason why the universe and life exists. Your not going to suggest for some mysterious reason the universe and life had to exist?

On the other hand, theists haven't been able to provide ay evidence that cannot be refuted by a little bit of logic and a dose of reality. The reason why their position is marginalized as a faith proposition is because that is precisely what it is. If you were able to present some actual evidence, then you might have a case, but as of now, you have nothing.

Evidence are simply facts that comport with a belief. The weight of evidence and its merit isn't determined by those arguing a case. I don't know why that piece of logic and reality eludes you. If you were to debate a subject or try a case, you don't also get to sit in the judges chair and decide what is and isn't evidence and then also get to sit in the juries seat and decide the merit of the case as well as sit in opposing counsels chair and make your case.