The Case for Theism

[Esquilax]

Actually like many I was brought up in Catholicism which I loathed. Then when I moved out from my parents I discarded any religious belief including belief in the existence of God. Then in my late 20's I re-examined the issue and wondered about my own existence, the existence of others and the existence of the universe and how it is we came about and ultimately came to the belief that we owe our existence to a Creator. Its an opinion, I could be wrong but I think it is the better explanation.

This is not a new story. Maybe try something a little fresher than the old "I used to be an atheist but then I saw the light!" chestnut.

Any rational person including most atheists think we're either the result of plan and design by a personal agent or were the unintended result of some naturalistic process that didn't plan or intend us to exist. I don't think even you believe otherwise.

That's as may be, but I've already demonstrated that no matter how many people believe in one or the other, there's more than two options. The fact that you continue arguing from the position that this is a binary choice is frankly breathtakingly ignorant.

That's rich an atheist calling me rude. Lets see if we can settle this once and for all. Do you believe (not do you know of theories) that our existence and that of the universe is the result of or exists in some other fashion that is neither the result of plan and design or some unguided naturalistic process that unintentionally resulted in our existence?

Like I said, I don't know. I think that the evidence in favor of a non-created universe is stronger than the reverse, but I'm open to the possibility that either idea could come through with stronger proof and tip those scales. After reading through all your evidence so far, I still think that; nothing you've said has been anywhere near strong enough to alter my views.

Speaking for yourself you can claim that being an atheist just means you don't know or you're ignorant. But your mistaken if you think thats what the majority of atheists think and I could take a survey to prove it. The vast majority of atheists will claim to be nearly certain no God was involved in the cause of the universe because according to them there is no God, God doesn't exist. They will concede they're not certain how the universe came about or how life came about but they are extremely confident that some naturalistic unguided mindless method unintentionally caused the universe and life to exist and eventually this will be confirmed. I suspect that is what you actually believe but you prefer to pettifog the issue.

Do you happen to know why we're extremely confident of that? Because that's where the evidence leads. That's where the scientific consensus seems to point. The people who are actually researching this, using mathematics and science and tools so far out of my range of goddamn experience as to genuinely leave me in awe of their skills? Those people aren't finding evidence for a creator god. Every day they're discovering more things about the universe, getting us closer and closer to the next big discovery, and for every mystery they solve, everything they do discover that someone like you has claimed is the work of one god or another, do you know what the common factor is? When they find the answer, the real one, no god was involved.

We can be confident in the knowledge of people who've devoted their time and effort to studying these things, and who have constructed and participated in a scientific community that can be trusted to keep itself honest and to refine even the best of theories. These people find no god, and yet a guy like you, one man without any due peer review and going against the consensus of a community that makes physics its bitch time and again just for the fun of it, loftily decides that his (already refuted) idea of evidence is so much more superior than any of the work those guys can do.

That's why we're confident in what science tells us, and consequently, why the opinions of a single forum goer who presupposes the existence of a god in the majority of his "evidence" isn't really impressing us. Can you really blame us for taking the word of real scientists over you, Drew?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Lets see if we can settle this once and for all. Do you believe (not do you know of theories) that our existence and that of the universe is the result of or exists in some other fashion that is neither the result of plan and design or some unguided naturalistic process that unintentionally resulted in our existence?

Speaking for yourself you can claim that being an atheist just means you don't know or you're ignorant. But your mistaken if you think thats what the majority of atheists think and I could take a survey to prove it. The vast majority of atheists will claim to be nearly certain no God was involved in the cause of the universe because according to them there is no God, God doesn't exist.

I do not know that a creator was definitely not involved in the existance of our universe. I do not know this because I do not have evidence to prove that one was not in fact involved.

I do not believe that a creator was involved for the same reason. Here's the rub. I'm not claiming that one did, i'm simply rejecting anyone's claim that one is real and actually did for the same reasons I cannot SHOW that one did not.

I saw an example one time that illustrates this perfectly.

If I had 2 clear glass jars that both appeared to be empty.

I told you that one of them was infact empty but the other had a God in it that was responsible for every answer to every question you could have about anything.

But this God could not be seen or heard by you.

It lacked any attribute that you would associate with any actual being or thing whatsoever.

There was no experiment that you could do that shows that anything existed in the "God Jar" that didn't exist in the empty jar.

How then would I convince you of this claim?

If I had a really popular book that had unfalsifiable methods for individuals to prove it to themselves that the God was in the jar, but no way to show it to others for them to validate their claims, would that convince you?

What would it take to convince you that the God Jar had anything more in it than the empty one?

Perhaps they're both empty. Does that seem like a logical conclusion?

It certainly follows, but still isn't enough to PROVE that there's no God, but in this case the absence of evidence serves as evidence of absence.
(not all cases but many) as long as the properties and data that one would expect to exist should the thing you are looking to prove be true, then its certainly a very valuable rule of science.

Example: If I draw the conclusion that a planet doesn't exist between Earth and Mars, and I draw this conclusion based on the lack of any evidence of a spherical object of consideralbe mass anywhere to be found revolving around the sun between our planet and the next object that meets the qualifying criteria (mars) that can be viewed, there is no
reason to believe that there is an invisible one that just happens to defy all other characteristics and laws that all other objects in our universe would follow for no other reason than it just seems possible. Which it is! In the sense that it cannot be proven otherwise! Given that there is no method for recording invisible planets, I cannot in FACT say that one doesn't exist. It just seems more likely given the absence of evidence for any other object with similar qualities.

If you are to claim otherwise, show me why or i'm not interested.

I'm okay with the 2 empty jars. I don't need to place something in one in order to have a sense of closure for the things I just don't know right now.

The universe we have is precisely the one that could be expected and explained by a universe created out of chance from nothing. It is most likely quantum.

Quantum science is amazing. Look into the crazy postulates of string theory! It's mind boggling!

When I say that God doesn't exist, it is an assumption that has not been altered because its the default assumption. It's not on me to prove that your wrong any more than I would actually try to convince you that both of the jars aren't empty.

[Cyberman]

Atheists as a rule don't claim that everything didn't come about as a result of some creator, intelligent or otherwise; we simply ask that theists who make such claims provide evidence for why they, and by extension we, should believe them.

You don't seem like a person who merely has a lack of belief, but actually a fairly strong conviction that there is no God and our existence and the universe isn't the result of a creator and subsequently is the result of a natural process that didn't intend for us to exist.

Oh really? Say, here's an idea: why don't you try, you know, actually asking me what I believe (or not) instead of imposing some convoluted invention of your own, tailored solely to prop up your own arguments (such as they are)? Would that work, do you think?

Because this is how the game looks from my position:

Round One - FIGHT!

Chris: Hi there; I'm a Christian. I believe in the risen Christ.
Arthur: Oh yes? Why's that, then?

Round Two - FIGHT!

Arthur: Hello, I'm an atheist. I lack a belief in gods.
Chris: No you don't. You believe in no gods.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Can anyone spot which of the two is not only more polite and tolerant but also less likely to shut down discussion?

If all you had was a lack of belief the reasonable case I've made from facts should give you reason to reconsider.

I lack such belief, to be sure, but it's not the only tool in my box (Fnarr! Fnarr!). I also have an inbuilt filter to analyse new ideas and determine the validity of evidence. That's the difference between being open-minded and being credulous (or gullible, if I'm feeling mean). It's not my fault if your "reasonable case" happens not to make the cut. Get better facts.

[Mister Agenda]

Step 1. Icontrovertible Facts
Step 2. ?
Step 3. PROFIT!

[Drew_2013]

Any rational person including most atheists think we're either the result of plan and design by a personal agent or were the unintended result of some naturalistic process that didn't plan or intend us to exist. I don't think even you believe otherwise.

That's as may be, but I've already demonstrated that no matter how many people believe in one or the other, there's more than two options. The fact that you continue arguing from the position that this is a binary choice is frankly breathtakingly ignorant.

There are theorhetical options that even you don't believe are true.

That's rich an atheist calling me rude. Lets see if we can settle this once and for all. Do you believe (not do you know of theories) that our existence and that of the universe is the result of or exists in some other fashion that is neither the result of plan and design or some unguided naturalistic process that unintentionally resulted in our existence?

Like I said, I don't know. I think that the evidence in favor of a non-created universe is stronger than the reverse, but I'm open to the possibility that either idea could come through with stronger proof and tip those scales. After reading through all your evidence so far, I still think that; nothing you've said has been anywhere near strong enough to alter my views.

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that the universe in its current form began to exist and that even time began to exist when the universe emerged. Thats where the scientific consensus that you embrace when it seems to support your contention leads.

They will concede they're not certain how the universe came about or how life came about but they are extremely confident that some naturalistic unguided mindless method unintentionally caused the universe and life to exist and eventually this will be confirmed. I suspect that is what you actually believe but you prefer to pettifog the issue.

Do you happen to know why we're extremely confident of that? Because that's where the evidence leads.

Then why have you spent post after post denying, obfuscating and pettifogging the issue when in fact all along you subscribe to exactly what I have said page after page? If you are confident as you say, why did I have to goad you over and over to finally make you man up and say what you really believe? I wrote earlier from an article on genuine inquiry vs fake or sham inquiry.

Neither sham nor fake inquiry is really inquiry; but we need to get beyond this tautology to understand what is wrong with sham and fake reasoning. The sham inquirer tries to make a case for the truth of a proposition his commitment to which is already evidence- and argument-proof. The fake inquirer tries to make a case for some proposition advancing which he thinks will enhance his own reputation, but to the truth-value of which he is indifferent. (Such indifference is, as Harry Frankfurt once shrewdly observed, the characteristic attitude of the bullshitter.)3 Both the sham and the fake inquirer, but especially the sham, are motivated to avoid examining any apparently contrary evidence or argument too closely, to play down its importance or impugn its relevance, to contort themselves explaining it away. And, since people often mistake the impressively obscure for the profound, both, but especially the fake reasoner, are motivated to obfuscate.


But now you say (not that you have a shred of credibility left) that you have a great deal of confidence 'that some naturalistic unguided mindless method unintentionally caused the universe and life to exist'. If you are so confident why have you spent endless time and posts denying the very thing you're confident of? Do you think if we we're arguing our respective case before a group of impartial people who are neither comitted atheists or theists that you haven't just shot yourself in the foot and destroyed any chance of being credible? Have you given such an impartial crowd any reason to think your sincere in your beliefs? Its obvious now you're willing to spew any nonsense in favor of your contention whether you believe it or not.

The people who are actually researching this, using mathematics and science and tools so far out of my range of goddamn experience as to genuinely leave me in awe of their skills? Those people aren't finding evidence for a creator god. Every day they're discovering more things about the universe, getting us closer and closer to the next big discovery, and for every mystery they solve, everything they do discover that someone like you has claimed is the work of one god or another, do you know what the common factor is? When they find the answer, the real one, no god was involved.

Thats because scientists are committed to naturalistic explanations. In fact they define science as the search for naturalistic explanations. And its not true that they haven't discovered facts that support theism. For a period of time scientists believed the universe always existed and stretched out infinitely in all directions but much to their chagrin they discovered it did begin to exist in at least its present form about 13.7 billion years ago and that even time began to exist. The consensus among scientists is that the universe came into existence from a phenomenon known as a singularity, something that is beyond the laws of physics we are somewhat familiar with. Do you think that scientific theory supports the belief its 'natural causes' all the way down? If 'natural' is defined as anything that could possibly happen then there is no distinction between natural and supernatural (which in fact there isn't). It was also an atheist scientist Martin Ree's who I used as a source to support the fine tuning contention. I didn't make this stuff up, I didn't research it, they did.

That's why we're confident in what science tells us, and consequently, why the opinions of a single forum goer who presupposes the existence of a god in the majority of his "evidence" isn't really impressing us. Can you really blame us for taking the word of real scientists over you, Drew?

Why should we believe anything you say? You think you have a shred of credibility left? Its fortunate for you this is an atheist forum if this were a debating forum you'd have your head handed to you. You only have confidence in science when it tells you what you want to hear. If you were confident in science and the belief we owe our existence to natural causes that didn't plan or intend our existence why have you spent page after page denying exactly what you claim to have confidence in. You have been acting more like your embarrassed and ashamed of what you believe. You should have your atheist card pulled.

[The Grand Nudger]

Drew, show us the plan. That's all there is to it. We all agree (at least for discussion) that we are here. We have evidence that we are here. We have no evidence for your plan. We have no evidence for your mind. If you have some, fess up, it's really that simple.

[Esquilax]

Yeah, I'm not going to go through word by word on your disgustingly oversimplified straw man of my argument, Drew. I'm just going to say this; whether the universe came into existence or not, nothing you've presented brings us anywhere near a creator god. You're just twisting things so that they fit your presuppositions, then showing just how amazingly dishonest you are in addressing any counterarguments.

So if you've got something real, you'd better show it. I'm getting kind of tired of having to wade through straw for the privilege of being told what I believe by some ill informed little man who thinks he has all the answers while in fact having none.

Oh, and by the way, I didn't realize I had to believe in a theory for it to be an alternative to your two system game. By that logic, since you don't believe in the naturalistic solution, does that mean you can't talk about it, either? Wouldn't that rather unbalance your argument.

The fact is, I presented science to support the multiple worlds theory, belief or no. All you've presented for your pet theory is "stuff exists, therefore god"

[Cato]

@Drew

Thanks man. Until now I was vehemently opposed to hunting whale; now I know that if I get a blue whale and heat its blubber I might actually obtain enough lubrication to fulfill my mission. What's my mission? To fuck you. You have to be the most dense cunt I've ever encountered.

5 irrefutable facts my ass. The first four are self evidentiary and don't require a deity, so much for theism. You then troll out the fine tuning argument for number 5, acting as if we've never heard such erudition. Tell me, what examples do you have that suggest that the physical constants that govern existence could be anything other than what they are?

There's good reason why the values you claim to have been tuned are called 'constants'.

[Drew_2013]

Texas Sailor,

I do not know that a creator was definitely not involved in the existance of our universe. I do not know this because I do not have evidence to prove that one was not in fact involved.

None at all? I'm a theist and I can think of some evidence that would lead one to conclude no Creator or God was involved.

I saw an example one time that illustrates this perfectly.
If I had 2 clear glass jars that both appeared to be empty.
I told you that one of them was infact empty but the other had a God in it that was responsible for every answer to every question you could have about anything.
But this God could not be seen or heard by you.
It lacked any attribute that you would associate with any actual being or thing whatsoever.
There was no experiment that you could do that shows that anything existed in the "God Jar" that didn't exist in the empty jar.
How then would I convince you of this claim?

It illustrates something perfectly but not the situation we're discussing. Using your illustration we have two jars containing the universe, life, sentient life and a universe with extremely narrow characteristics that allow the only type of life we know exists. The existence of the aforementioned in a jar is attributed to mindless, lifeless forces that didn't plan, design or intend the things that exist in the jar to happen. It was a fortuitous act of serendipity. The things in the other jar is attributed to a Creator who caused and intentionally designed the things in the jar. Both sides argue from the things that exist that their explanation is correct.

I'm not sure how you missed the boat on this Sailor but how did you miss the fact that theists attribute the existence of the universe, life and sentient life to God? Did you think about what theism and atheism means?

The universe we have is precisely the one that could be expected and explained by a universe created out of chance from nothing. It is most likely quantum.

I'm glad you brought this up because early in this discussion I brought up the notion held by some atheists that the universe came into existence uncaused out of nothing and I was told few if any atheists hold to that notion. When I say I believe God designed, caused and created the universe to exist, I'm told its an act of magic...but you claim the universe came into existence uncaused out of nothing, which one of those claims seems more magical to you?

---

Stimbo,

Oh really? Say, here's an idea: why don't you try, you know, actually asking me what I believe (or not) instead of imposing some convoluted invention of your own, tailored solely to prop up your own arguments (such as they are)? Would that work, do you think?

This is an open speech forum share whatever thoughts you like.

I lack such belief, to be sure, but it's not the only tool in my box (Fnarr! Fnarr!). I also have an inbuilt filter to analyse new ideas and determine the validity of evidence. That's the difference between being open-minded and being credulous (or gullible, if I'm feeling mean). It's not my fault if your "reasonable case" happens not to make the cut. Get better facts.

Do you lack belief we owe the existence of the universe and our lives to mindless lifeless forces that didn't plan or intend our existence also?

---

Esquilax,

Yeah, I'm not going to go through word by word on your disgustingly oversimplified straw man of my argument, Drew. I'm just going to say this; whether the universe came into existence or not, nothing you've presented brings us anywhere near a creator god. You're just twisting things so that they fit your presuppositions, then showing just how amazingly dishonest you are in addressing any counterarguments.

Good idea I'd quit while I was a mile behind and can still muster some dignity. You got hoisted by your own petard don't come whining to me about it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

This is not a new story. Maybe try something a little fresher than the old "I used to be an atheist but then I saw the light!" chestnut.

Yes. As equally trite as 'I used to be religious until I understood reason."

I think that the evidence in favor of a non-created universe is stronger than the reverse.

I do not entirely disagree with this, if by universe you mean the whole of reality. I take it you consider the known physical universe to be the sum total of reality. The physical universe could extend into the past infinitely and into the future indefinitely while still being dependent upon something that itself does not depend on anything else for its existence.

...everything they do discover that someone like you has claimed is the work of one god or another, do you know what the common factor is? When they find the answer, the real one, no god was involved.

Perhaps every gain in scientific understanding supports the idea that the whole of reality includes a non-contingent immaterial agent involved in all aspects of the natural world. At least that's how I see it.