The Case for Theism

[The Grand Nudger]

Still haven't seen any case for theism. Not that I haven't seen a case that isn't persuasive - you have presented no case whatsoever.

[Creed of Heresy]

I've seen no case for theism. I came on here, went through pages 1-10 and came to the conclusion this guy has nothing worth listening to.

Wonder what's goin' on in A69.

[The Grand Nudger]

Probably a better case for a personal god. Just a guess.

[Cato]

I am now obliged to share my experience combining A69 and the idea of a personal god.

Despite the mess that I was woefully unprepared to immediately handle, my first mastubatory ejaculation also jettisoned any previous need for a personal god.

[Creed of Heresy]

XD Cato. Just. Lol.

I, personally, tire of hearing about "personal gods." Personal gods? What kind of shit is that? "I'M so important that I have my OWN god! And YOOOUUUU CAN'T HAVE HIM. It's my OWN idea of god!"

A garden may be beautiful but you don't need to imagine there's fairies at the bottom of it. Personal gods are invented by people with too much imagination and too little grounding in reality.

[Angrboda]

Yippee. Over thirty pages of the same argument twice, only to be given the summation that theism is a reasonable belief because it's popular and atheism must be unreasonable because it's so unpopular. I had forgotten that valuable axiom that what is true is what is popular.

Dear Drew. Correcting people when they are wrong is not an example of intolerance. And lest it go by without saying, once again, you are wrong.

[median]

There is a reason most sane lucid adults who don't believe in Fairies, Santa Claus, Invisible pink elephants do believe in a Creator of the universe and humans. It's not just because folks are brought up to believe in the existence of God, there are plenty of beliefs folks are taught as children that they later reject. It's because in part it's the best explanation for why we find ourselves alive and in a universe that allows our existence.

An argument from ignorance is the best explanation? NO.

Theism to me is a belief and an opinion, I don't claim it's a fact. It's an opinion regarding the most basic philosophical questions people have asked.

So you have chosen to base your entire life upon just an opinion (a hunch) then? You apologists certainly don't treat your theism like an opinion. You hold your "faith" tightly, fixed, and rigid, and defend it as if it's fact. Do you think the resurrection is "most probably true"? Is it just your opinion that Jesus is the son of God? How are you distinguishing belief and opinion here b/c this certainly sounds like the equivocation fallacy. Also, why are you basing your entire life choices upon an opinion, as opposed to something that you are certain is true?

Regardless of which definition atheists prefer you can ask anyone who calls them self an atheist do you believe we owe the existence of the universe and human life to a personal transcendent Creator of great power and invariably they answer no. They don't merely lack belief that a transcendent Creator of great power caused the universe and humans to exist, they don't believe such was the case.

Do you understand the different between not believing something is true, and believing something is false?? Claims to belief and claims to knowledge are quite different. As an agnostic atheist, I do not hold (or have) a belief in a deity (as 'theism' is the BELIEF in a God). And I also do not have knowledge of a God (i.e. - I do not claim to know there is one). This would be the same for unicorns, fairies, or Santa Claus.

And yes, I do maintain that religious belief is Santa Claus for grown ups. When we don't know something, we should admit it. And when we don't have sufficient evidence to support something we should, at the very least, suspend judgement instead of practicing credulity.

There are two primary reasons I am a theist. First because there are facts (evidence) that supports that belief.

I would actually maintain that this is entirely false. I have never had an experience with a theist (of any kind - and I have met a lot) who actually, honestly, and truly believes in their alleged deity for the primary reason that "there are facts that support that belief". No, instead it is overwhelmingly the case that the religious believer ASSUMED their particular holy book was "the word of God" - because someone else 'sold' them the idea, they then claimed to have some subjective personal experience (which cannot be demonstrated or affirmed), and THEN they started looking for arguments to support their already firmly held belief.

Secondly if I were to reject the belief that God created the universe and humans I would have to be persuaded that mindless lifeless forces somehow coughed a universe into existence and without plan or intent caused the right conditions for life to occur. I'd have to believe that life and mind without plan or intent emerged from something totally unlike itself, mindless lifeless forces.

This argument commits the fallacy of a false dichotomy. You are acting as if there are ONLY two options, when in fact there are more. If you stopped believing in your Yahweh deity, why would you then think that the ONLY other option would be to believe firmly (like you believe now) in "mindless lifeless forces"?? Why couldn't you simply admit that you DON'T KNOW???? It always puzzles me why you people are SO set on, "I HAVE TO KNOW RIGHT NOW!!" It's absurd.

I know most atheists prefer we just reject God first and then take it on faith that that our existence was caused by naturalistic forces that didn't intend our existence and that the universe also just came into existence for no particular reason. We should just assume that natural forces did it somehow. I'll leave it to atheists to persuade me such did happen or such could happen. After all we're not supposed to just take things on faith.

This is 100% false (likely b/c you are attempting to define "faith" in a way that is extremely vague and unimpressive - and also b/c this is NOT at all what we unbelievers do). I do not "have faith" in anything. Reasonable expectations based on evidence is NOT faith. For one, b/c faith is rigid, fixed, and held to strongly - whereas reasonably trusting the evidence is tentative and easily changeable. Is your faith in Jesus, or God, or Yahweh, or whatever, easily changeable?

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. 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.

Actually, the more precise way of putting this is that there is no GOOD/SOUND evidence for theism (there is no extraordinary evidence). Indeed, anybody can use almost anything as 'evidence' for anything (just as lightening used to be called 'evidence' for Zeus). Big whoop. As your alleged 'evidence' below shows (the universe? really?) you are really grasping b/c you have no real extraordinary evidence.

Here's a test: If a salesman came to your door, claiming to have a 'magic' product that would "cure all your sicknesses and ailments instantly" but his only evidence was "I have this bottle. It's in here" would you believe his 'evidence' and buy his magic potion juice with your life savings? This is why we don't buy your claim to theism (not to mention the fact that you haven't provided any coherent definition of what the word "God" means).

I will present several lines of evidence that support the belief in theism. They don't prove theism is true, they merely provide good reason to think it's true. I'm not going to be making any 'God of the gaps' arguments nor am I going to offer any hypothetical scenarios or cite the mere possibility of something being true as evidence theism is true.

The first line of evidence is.

1. The fact the universe exists

That might seem like a paltry fact in support of theism. Suppose I was trying a case for murder, the first line of evidence I would produce is a dead body. After all, I couldn't accuse anyone of murder if there was no one deceased. If the universe didn't exist there would be no reason to invoke the existence of God. Moreover if a universe didn't exist there would in fact be as atheists claim no evidence God exists. In order for anyone to even think God exists a place for humans to exist must exist. There are certain facts that must be true for anyone to think God exists. For humans to have any reason to think God might exist, we must have a place that allows us to live. There are in fact several facts and conditions that must be true in order for there to be any reason to think the existence of a Creator is true. None of those facts needs to be true for atheism to be true. Atheism doesn't require the existence of a universe to believe atheism is true. If the universe didn't exist atheism might still be false (God might exist but not have created the universe) but there would be no evidentiary reason to raise the existence of God. Additional lines of evidence soon to follow...

First, you have a misconception as to what atheism is. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God. Just like theism is the BELIEF in a God. So theism and atheism have to do with belief. That is all. Therefore, there is no burden of proof for atheism - just like there is no burden of proof on you if I claim to have a flying pet fire-breathing dragon in my backyard.

Second, you're right. "The fact that the universe exists" is certainly looking faulty. It is NOT (in any way) a good reason for thinking your alleged God exists. Are you willing to be consistent and say that the fact of anything existing can be used to support any mythical thing existing? If not, why not? If so, then why think your argument is any better? This just sounds like gullibility.

So, your 'reasons' for thinking there is a God (whatever the heck that term is supposed to mean) are not just terrible. They are credulous. You WANT to believe b/c of either your fear of death, fear of the unknown, desperation to 'just know' how we got here, etc. And those psychological motivations are stopping you from being rational and consistent.

[The Grand Nudger]

In the same vein, there's really no burden of proof for theism. If someone says they believe, I'll take them at their word for that (I don't require that they prove that they have such a belief). The trouble only arises when someone insists that their beliefs are factually accurate/true/in evidence.

[Lord Privy Seal]

>snip shed-load of excess verbiage<

There are two primary reasons I am a theist. First because there are facts (evidence) that supports that belief.

And that evidence is?

...

...

...

*whistles*

...

*taps foot*

...

*crickets*

Right. Moving on.

Secondly if I were to reject the belief that God created the universe and humans I would have to be persuaded that mindless lifeless forces somehow coughed a universe into existence and without plan or intent caused the right conditions for life to occur. I'd have to believe that life and mind without plan or intent emerged from something totally unlike itself, mindless lifeless forces.

This is called the Argument from Personal Incredulity. It's a logical fallacy. And that's just the beginning of its fractal fallaciousness. First of all, if "life and mind" require another instance of "life and mind" to produce them, who created your god? Since he is presumably much bigger, more impressive, more complex, etc. than humans, his existence must necessarily represent an even greater wonder than ours, and thus require a super-supernatural explanation, by your "logic."

Second, complex structures arise without the aid of humanoid designers all the time. Snowflakes form exquisite, individually unique, intricate geometric forms, from shapeless water "totally unlike themselves," through the mindless, lifeless forces of thermodynamics (the water loses heat) and molecular bonds. There are no Snowflake Faeries with tiny chisels carving out each little masterpiece. Google "cymatics" and watch the videos, and you will see multiple examples of complex geometric forms, animated moving shapes, even eerily life-like "organisms" created by applying sound waves to ductile materials (water, lycopodium powder, various pastes).

>snip more shed-loads of excess verbiage containing no evidence or arguments<

The first line of evidence is.

1. The fact the universe exists

>snip...crikey! Learn to. Get. To. The. Point!<

In order for anyone to even think God exists a place for humans to exist must exist.

Wherever do you get the idea that the Cosmos was created for us? Humans can live on part of one-third of the surface of the Earth. Dolphins can live on (in) two-thirds of the Earth's surface. Therefore, the Cosmos was created by the great Goddess Ekikikikikak'k'reeEEEEEEEEeeee! (Peace be upon Her Holy Flukes) Right?

But wait, it gets worse. Earth is an inconceivably tiny little speck orbiting one little star out of about 400 billion stars that compose one galaxy of at least 100 billion galaxies. Humans' tenure on Earth--about 200,000 years at the longest--is a mere rounding error in the 14 billion year history of the Cosmos. 99.999999999999999999999999999999999+ percent of the Cosmos is lethal to human life; either vacuum and hard radiation, barren rocky planets hard radiation and/or poison atmospheres, gas giants with poison atmospheres and not even anywhere to stand...plus hard radiation, deadly storms, too much gravity, and powerful (enough to be deadly) magnetic fields. That's before you get to the really scary stuff, like black holes, quasars, gamma ray bursts, neutron stars, supernova explosions...

On top of all that, it's all so mind-bogglingly far away we can't even go there! Even with the Starship Enterprise, all but the most miniscule little fraction of the Cosmos would still be far, far, far out of our reach.

Form Follows Function:

The more intelligent and capable a creative agency (inventor, artist, design team, etc.) is, the better it will be at crafting the form of an artifact to its function. If the Cosmos was designed by an omni-capable being or beings, we would expect it to suit its purpose with exquisite, sublime perfection. We certainly would not expect all but the teeniest part of it to consist of wasted space, energy, and material. We would expect that it be functional for its intended purpose for most, if not all, of its operational lifetime.

So, if this Cosmos was designed by intelligence(s), it very clearly was not designed as a human-habitat. It only barely permits our existence at all! Even if the Cosmos is a created artifact (you have provided no evidence for this claim) we have no reason to assume we could even fathom its purpose. You are like a bacterium on an office doorknob in the Large Hadron Collider complex saying, "Hey! I can live here! The Great Bacterium must have made this place just for me!

The Cosmos we live in is compelling evidence against your god.

[median]

Form Follows Function:

The more intelligent and capable a creative agency (inventor, artist, design team, etc.) is, the better it will be at crafting the form of an artifact to its function. If the Cosmos was designed by an omni-capable being or beings, we would expect it to suit its purpose with exquisite, sublime perfection. We certainly would not expect all but the teeniest part of it to consist of wasted space, energy, and material. We would expect that it be functional for its intended purpose for most, if not all, of its operational lifetime.

So, if this Cosmos was designed by intelligence(s), it very clearly was not designed as a human-habitat. It only barely permits our existence at all! Even if the Cosmos is a created artifact (you have provided no evidence for this claim) we have no reason to assume we could even fathom its purpose. You are like a bacterium on an office doorknob in the Large Hadron Collider complex saying, "Hey! I can live here! The Great Bacterium must have made this place just for me!

The Cosmos we live in is compelling evidence against your god.

Oh but wait, no, you see, there is thing called "sin". The fall of man makes it harder for us to completely see design b/c we are fallen human beings. All of the destruction, messiness, and death we see in the universe was because we disobeyed God. But we can still see the remnant. It's just so fine tuned! You can't see it because of your sin. Boo hoo.