The Case for Theism

[KichigaiNeko]

Showing good intentions is great. I truly wish you well my dear

Although I would assume learning written Arabic will be difficult?

Thanks.

I'm writing it in English. If people want to translate it to Arabic later, I'm game. I am no well enough in Arabic to write a book in Arabic.

Better than I mate

[Neo-Scholastic]

How would have access to this knowledge about this god entity?

Isn't it obvious? You know Unmoved Mover and all that.

[Drew_2013]

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.

Its not your theological views I'm questioning, its your integrity, credibility and sincerity that is at issue. If you don't wish to defend that so be it.

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.

Not at all I stated that was his conclusion. I used Martin Rees as a source for three reasons. He's highly regarded, he's an atheist and I have his book. And your quite right, true to atheist form he ignores the evidence that would lead most people to conclude design and instead argues for a naturalism in the gaps explanation even though he himself admits such an idea isn't grounded on evidence and may in fact be unfalsifiable.

[Whateverist]

I used Martin Rees as a source for three reasons. He's highly regarded, he's an atheist and I have his book. And your quite right, true to atheist form he ignores the evidence that would lead most people to conclude design and instead argues for a naturalism in the gaps explanation even though he himself admits such an idea isn't grounded on evidence and may in fact be unfalsifiable.

There is no evidence which would lead any reasonable person to conclude design if they didn't start off thinking that to begin with. Of course, there is also no evidence for no god.

Whatever exists is natural. The assumption that what we don't know will turn out to be natural is unfalsifiable because that is how we define natural.

[pocaracas]

How would have access to this knowledge about this god entity?

Isn't it obvious? You know Unmoved Mover and all that.

No, it's not obvious at all. Please explain as if I were a 6 year old.

[Darkstar]

No my whole case was built in 5 indisputable facts, no God in the gaps necessary.

Do you know what god of the gaps is?

God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

So mindless they are predictable

Really?

Yep. Or are we ready to throw all of the discovered laws of physics out the window?

As science establishes these "rules of Nature", the god-did-it explanation shrinks in scope. What was once explained by the existence of a god, became explained by simple mindless forces. The god explanation shrank into the gaps in the scientific explanation of the world.

The premise is.

1. A mysterious phenomena exists
2. Scientists examine the phenomena and explain how it works by an appeal to the laws of nature
3. The laws of physics explains how something functions without appealing to the existnece of a Creator.
4. Therefore a Creator doesn't exist

4. Therefore the creator is unnecessary (Cannot be proven not to exist any more than the FSM can be proven not to exist. Also does not specify who/what the creator is.)

[Drew_2013]

To all,

It appears this thread has run it's course. There has been one major misconception since I first created this post The Case for Theism that it was my intention to persuade atheists that theism is true. Short of irrefutable evidence God caused and created the universe it is nearly impossible to persuade someone who has adopted an opposing belief to the contrary. Likewise minus compelling evidence to the contrary there is little reason for me to reject one belief in favor of another...curiously few atheists try. They believe our existence is the result of mindless forces that without plan or intention caused our existence but how that occurred remains mostly a mystery. They seem to think that just disparaging belief in theism alone is sufficient. They rely almost exclusively on the fact theists can't 'prove' God exists and created the universe as reason to reject such belief.

My intention was to show theism is a reasonable belief from the available evidence and also to give reason why theists believe in theism. Its not just because they were brought up to believe in God. Nearly everyone alive endures circumstances that would rightly make them question the existence of God, at least in a benevolent God who cares about his creation. Most adults who grow up question and scrutinize beliefs passed down by their parents, why haven't they abandoned theism? Its exactly because what I have argued over 30 pages. It makes more sense to most people that we exist and live in a universe that supports our existence because it was planned, designed and created to host our existence then the counter belief that our existence is unintended freak accident of nature and instead we owe our existence to the most fortuitous stroke of serendipity imaginable. Whether true or not, that makes more sense from people's experience.

There is another reason atheism remains unpopular. Look at it this way 30 years ago homosexuality was mostly reviled, it was viewed as sexual deviancy and 30 years ago same sex marriage was out of the question. In only 30 short years it is now viewed as nothing more than an alternative lifestyle and almost certainly same sex marriage will eventually be the law of the land. Why have peoples minds changed so radically about that but not about atheism? The reason is because Atheism as a PR campaign is a disaster. The most visible actions from atheists is attempting to remove displays of Christmas from public viewing which affects mostly children. Can anyone possibly think that will endear atheists to the public? Secondly atheists tend to express atheism as a fact not a belief and mock and ridicule those who don't share their belief in the non-existence of God (stated as if it were an obvious fact). If it was such an obvious fact that God doesn't exist atheists would make a solid case in favor of atheism instead of hiding behind the atheism as a lack of belief dodge. Why would anyone be persuaded that God doesn't exist if the people who are promoting that belief themselves are only willing to state it as a lack of belief? These means that even those who call themselves atheists concede God might exist...they just doubt it. Thats weak alright. I believe many atheists only claim to be weak atheists because it excuses them from having to make a case for the belief God doesn't exist and as a result they say the burden rests with the theist. Again that isn't going to move anyone who is a theist or anyone who is on the fence.

What would atheists do if they wanted to see their movement grow or at least not be as loathed as it is? First drop the mocking and ridiculing of folks who do believe in God. If there was an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that we owe the existence of the universe and our own existence to naturalistic forces there might be cause to mock and ridicule but since many atheists themselves admit to only lacking belief in the existence of God, where is there room to mock and ridicule? How would insulting folks intelligence possibly persuade them? Claiming there is no evidence we are the result of a Creator is demonstrably untrue...it is just a slogan of atheists. Instead if atheists respected other people's beliefs but sincerely shared why they disagree, at least there would be a dialog instead of a confrontation. Trying to make a comparison between belief in God and Santa Claus and Fairies is again exasperating and insulting and not the least persuasive. Theists don't believe in Santa Claus or fairies any more than atheists do. The fact is people of all walks of life, professions and intelligence believe we owe our existence to a Creator.

[Cyberman]

How can anyone present a case for anything without the intention of persuading that it's true?

[Cato]

Drew,

I'm speaking for myself, but I know many other atheists will share my thoughts on the screed that is your last post.

I don't care that you believe in a god. I really don't. I've said a few times on these forums that I can respect a deist's position regarding the cause of the big bang. The difference between me and a deist is that I suspend judgement until more information is acquired. Simple as that.

A theist is entirely different. A theist uses a collection of ancient texts to tell me what characteristics the deity has. This includes a myriad of different things I can and cannot do, which even among the devout vary widely, for fear of punishment now or in the hereafter. Even if I grant you a deity, you cannot connect the dots between a creator of the universe and your special rule book. It simply cannot be done. All creation myths suffer at this point. All you have at this point is your desire for your doctrine to be true. That's it. Why you keep insisting that this is sufficient reason to believe is beyond me. Believe what you want, leave me the fuck alone.

And here is where I wield ridicule as a weopon. I have no problem with people of any religion peacably assembling for ritual and fraternity as long as it doesn't harm others, particularly children. When you harm others for the sake of your rule book, I ridicule. When you try to force your rule book on those that don't accept it, I ricicule. When you promise eternal torment because I think differently, I ridicule. When a theist screams persecution because I disagree, I ridicule. When you lack the ability to understand why I demand evidence, I ridicule. I could go on all night.

I am also not a power hungry asshole wanting increased participation in order to fill a collection plate.

In short, go fuck yourself.

[downbeatplumb]

The most visible acts by atheists are when we are railing against illegal or inappropriate things done by theists.

Trying to smuggle creationism into the classroom or acting against equality in the name of their "god".

Theists tend to point attempts to ban christmas as though thats a thing.

I love christmas, I would have also love saturnalia and sol victus we all need a party in december.