The Case for Theism

[Darkstar]

Lets attempt to limit this discussion to known facts. If the day comes the existence of other universes is a fact then we can consider it.

In case this needs explaining (you never know) neither the existence of god nor even the physical possibility of god are established facts. Until there is evidence for god, why act as if there is? If I understand you correctly, you say that such an amazingly complex universe must have been created. So...wouldn't an infinitely more amazing god also require creation, or will you play the special pleading card?

In the words of Carl Sagan (or as close to them as I can remember): "Why not save a step, and say that the universe always existed?" Not in its current state, obviously. But rather that the matter that composes it always existed. Then there is Quantum fluctuation, and don't forget this discovery.

It is the default position to suspend judgment when there isn't solid evidence, rather than go with your gut. Thing is, when someone says "naturalistic explanation" there are many possible theories that could belong under that category. People said that lightning was Zeus, and tidal waves Posiedon. Do you know the one thing all claims of "goddidit" have historically had in common? When we found out the answer, goddidntdoit. Why push him further into the gaps, instead of admitting that we don't know how the the universe began

[Drew_2013]

It's because in part it's the best explanation for why we find ourselves alive and in a universe that allows our existence.

No, it isn't. As a matter of fact, that inclusion is no only a non-explanation, it prevents you from looking for the correct one.

Is this an example of the brilliant logic you allegedly refuted my arguments with?

No, they aren't. As you have been corrected on this point before, you should know better.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean a damn thing.

And many more that contradict it.

Good I hope this time you get around to making a case.

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.

As indicated many, many times before - false dichotomy. There are many other options available.

You are under the delusion that because you say something, that makes it so. What are these other options you refer to? If you want to claim I am spouting a false dichotomy then man up and say something other than because I say so.

A dead body, by itself, is not sufficient evidentiary cause to raise the existence of a murderer. You first have to establish cause of death.

Of course, but usually the first step on the road to that end is to produce a dead body.

If the death could not have been caused by natural mechanisms and indicative of intention behind it, then you have cause to suspect murderer. If it was not caused naturally, but there was no indication of intention, then it is happenstance or accident. Then there is the third option - where it is the consequence of natural mechanisms. In fact, that third option is what a coroner starts with unless he can see evidence to the contrary.

What is natural mechanisms and how do they differ from happenstance or accident?

Similarly, the default position for us with regards to the universe would be that it is the consequence of natural mechanisms unless there is indication of the supernatural. And in that case our options might be if it happened by plan or by happenstance.

What natural mechanism causes the existence of a universe? Besides in the other thread you declared the universe didn't come into existence and therefore wouldn't be the consequence of anything.

The same is not true for the universe. We've neither seen nor known any other universes to compare it to. So we cannot even say that it had a cause or that it didn't always exist.

The weight of evidence is it began to exist (in the configuration we now observe) about 13 and half billion years ago. Assuming it was a singularity at one point that is nothing like a universe.

If never-alive bodies were available in this world, then your so called "dead" body wouldn't even be evidentiary cause to indicate death - let alone murder and let alone a murderer.

You should be a stand up comedian...

[genkaus]

Lets attempt to limit this discussion to known facts. If the day comes the existence of other universes is a fact then we can consider it. Since life does exist as does the universe thats what the debate is about.

Lets. Since it is also a known fact that the universe largely - and I use the term conservatively - does not support life - the more accurate statement would be "existence of god is not the best explanation for why we find ourselves alive in a universe that only barely and minimally allows for our existence".

It doesn't but we have to use words that make sense to us.

And that's the problem - instead of widening your horizons and coming up with words to indicate concepts indescribable by current vocabulary - you choose existing words with specific connotations to undercut the concept itself.

I don't have faith in God, I believe God exists due to evidence in favor of that belief as well as lack of evidence of some other mechanism that can account for our existence.

You ignore all the evidence against that, you ignore all the logical contradictions resulting from the existence of such an entity and you ignore the fact that your so-called evidence is sketchy and non-indicative at best. Sounds like textbook case of faith to me.

I was just wondering because I have a feeling you are about to get your ass handed to you.

I doubt that.

Why? You are using all the old arguments you got your ass handed to you upon the last time. Why do you expect anything less this time?

[Esquilax]

So Drew, I think a better question is, why should anyone bother debating you at all, when everyone can just go to the "suppose science proves god exists?" thread and A: Watch you get your ass kicked all around the debating floor, and B: Observe each and every dishonest tactic you seem to pride yourself on using? What would be the point?

You are under the delusion that because you say something, that makes it so. What are these other options you refer to? If you want to claim I am spouting a false dichotomy then man up and say something other than because I say so.

Well, okay: how about a metastable universe that existed eternally and had no beginning or an end? You're claiming that it's possible with god, after all.

Or the multiple worlds hypothesis, where our universe would have sprung up as a reaction to a divergence in any number of parallel realities? No random happenstance there, and also no god.

That took me about thirty seconds of honest thought, but as we've all seen, you're more interested in gross simplifications that aid your single interpretation over the actual truth.

[genkaus]

Is this an example of the brilliant logic you allegedly refuted my arguments with?

No, this is an example of standard logic I refuted your nonsensical arguments with.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean a damn thing.

But the fact that philosophy disagrees with you means that you are wrong.

Good I hope this time you get around to making a case.

No need. I don't need to disprove that which is not proven in the first place.

You are under the delusion that because you say something, that makes it so. What are these other options you refer to? If you want to claim I am spouting a false dichotomy then man up and say something other than because I say so.

Let's see - from the previous thread - there was the multiverse hypothesis, the future time-traveler hypothesis, the naturalistic universe hypothesis, the causeless universe hypothesis and the eternal universe hypothesis - all of which have as much evidence as your god and some of which have much more. There! Multiple options provided and your failed false dichotomy stands established. Try not to repeat it again.

Of course, but usually the first step on the road to that end is to produce a dead body.

No, it isn't. The no body, no crime principle no longer applied. Thus, production of a body is no longer the first or even a necessary step in establishing death/murder/murderer.

What is natural mechanisms and how do they differ from happenstance or accident?

Natural mechanisms - meaning the logical progression of laws of nature in form of causal chain - as separated from accident or happenstance which is improbable or deviates from natural mechanism sufficiently to indicate a plan or design, but which is found out not to be the case. For example, if a man is found dead from old age or cancer or a stroke - that's a natural death. If he is found with a knife in the chest, but further examination indicates that he tripped and fell on it - that is accident or happenstance.

What natural mechanism causes the existence of a universe? Besides in the other thread you declared the universe didn't come into existence and therefore wouldn't be the consequence of anything.

Since you understand that I don't hold the position that the universe had a cause, you should also understand that this argument was simply to tear apart your analogy and not indicative of my actual belief.

Firstly, you'd have to ask those who do believe in a naturalistic cause of universe, though I guess there answer has something to do with the multiverse hypothesis.

Secondly, even the absence of knowledge of natural mechanism does not justify you jumping to the conclusion of a god. In pretty much the same way as even when coroner can't figure out the cause of death, he does not put murder in his report.

The weight of evidence is it began to exist (in the configuration we now observe) about 13 and half billion years ago. Assuming it was a singularity at one point that is nothing like a universe.

The key words here being "in the configuration we now observe". You may not like to think of the singularity as anything like the universe, but at the point if its existence (if that term could be applied in that manner), it was the universe.

You should be a stand up comedian...

And you can be the butt of my jokes. Everyone's laughing at you anyway.

[Whateverist]

Do you just 'lack belief' in the existence of Santa Claus or toothfaires? Or are you fairly certain they don't exist since you put them in the same category as God?

My best guess is that it is all silly-stuff. But I have no reason to worry about it and am uninspired to form an opinion.

I don't have faith in God, I believe God exists due to evidence in favor of that belief as well as lack of evidence of some other mechanism that can account for our existence.

Well have fun convincing Genkhaus. Personally I'm unimpressed with 'reasoned' arguments about silly stuff. Like him you will sneak in your bias and build sand castles from there.

My understanding is an agnostic claims there isn't enough evidence pro or con to beileve God exists. I actually loathe that position. Its like people who check undecided on a survey. Why bother? Its my opinion we owe our existence to a Creator but I could be wrong.

You should get on well with Genkhaus. Like you he is no middle of the roader. He is your kind of atheist. To me atheism, like theism, is much ado about nothing much. I'll leave it to the two of you to hash out whose arguments best support your own bias on these 'vital' questions.

Thats up to the individual. However, if we do owe our existence to God, then any belief that believe in God is at least partially right.

Sorry, I didn't quite hear your answer. Which God is it you think is the real McCoy, the one that all the others are at least partially right in as much as they allow for the category that includes your fave?

---

But the fact that philosophy disagrees with you means that you are wrong.

I would have thought such boasts were on par with those who claim to know what 'the facts' are according to science. Science doesn't trade in facts, it is about establishing which theories are best supported by evidence. It doesn't declare winners. Like science, philosophy is an approach to certain questions - generally ones too poorly defined to be decided in a straightforward manner. I'm unaware of any volume containing the settled positions to these questions which have become the orthodoxy of philosophy and endorsed by philosophers everywhere.

[Drew_2013]

In case this needs explaining (you never know) neither the existence of god nor even the physical possibility of god are established facts. Until there is evidence for god, why act as if there is? If I understand you correctly, you say that such an amazingly complex universe must have been created.

No the point is if the was no universe that supports life, then no one would be here to wonder if our existence was intentionally caused or whether it was the result of happenstance (watch out there is a guy in here who thinks that's a false dichotomy). If no universe existed, the case for theism would be closed. The fact a universe does exist is at least cause to suppose either mindless forces somehow caused it to exist or it was intentionally caused to exist. Atheism to be true doesn't require a universe to exist. Theism requires some place for us to exist in order to consider the universe may have been intentionally designed and created.

So...wouldn't an infinitely more amazing god also require creation, or will you play the special pleading card?

You know this is just a carnard right? Suppose you're right that God did need creating, if so theism is still true right? So it really doesn't make any difference to the question at hand. Let me point out though that theism is a belief in regard to how humans and the universe came about, its silent on how God might have come about.

It is the default position to suspend judgment when there isn't solid evidence, rather than go with your gut. Thing is, when someone says "naturalistic explanation" there are many possible theories that could belong under that category. People said that lightning was Zeus, and tidal waves Posiedon. Do you know the one thing all claims of "goddidit" have historically had in common? When we found out the answer, goddidntdoit. Why push him further into the gaps, instead of admitting that we don't know how the the universe began

We don't know how it began but I think we all agree it exists. You claim that goddidntdoit but if in fact God is responsible for the existence of the universe then indirectly God did do it didn't he? Your statement Goddidntdoit is only true if we were to settle the very question were asking.

[genkaus]

I would have thought such boasts were on par with those who claim to know what 'the facts' are according to science. Science doesn't trade in facts, it is about establishing which theories are best supported by evidence. It doesn't declare winners. Like science, philosophy is an approach to certain questions - generally ones too poorly defined to be decided in a straightforward manner. I'm unaware of any volume containing the settled positions to these questions which have become the orthodoxy of philosophy and endorsed by philosophers everywhere.

There isn't any such orthodoxy in science either - but there is an accepted methodology to both. In science the mode of inquiry is evidence, in philosophy it is reason or logic. The way that works is you start with certain premises and work out your answers from there. So when you are talking about the "most fundamental questions in philosophy" - you are referring to questions which would not anything for granted. Drew's questions assume a lot of things such as existence of universe, existence of causality, our existence etc. and therefore are not basic. The basic branch of philosophy would be metaphysics which deals with questions like "what exists" and "what is its nature".

By the way, is the consistent misspelling of my name a mistake or a joke that has gone over my head?

[Darkstar]

You know this is just a carnard right? Suppose you're right that God did need creating, if so theism is still true right? So it really doesn't make any difference to the question at hand. Let me point out though that theism is a belief in regard to how humans and the universe came about, its silent on how God might have come about.

And yet how god could exist, created or not, is an even more pressing question than how the universe could. The point is more that god couldn't have been created because if he were then there would need to be a god+, and a god++ above that and it would lead to infinite regress. If god came into being through natural processes, then wouldn't the universe have logically come before him? And if god is said to have always existed, then this is special pleading, that god can have always existed while nothing else can.

It is the default position to suspend judgment when there isn't solid evidence, rather than go with your gut. Thing is, when someone says "naturalistic explanation" there are many possible theories that could belong under that category. People said that lightning was Zeus, and tidal waves Posiedon. Do you know the one thing all claims of "goddidit" have historically had in common? When we found out the answer, goddidntdoit. Why push him further into the gaps, instead of admitting that we don't know how the the universe began

We don't know how it began but I think we all agree it exists. You claim that goddidntdoit but if in fact God is responsible for the existence of the universe then indirectly God did do it didn't he? Your statement Goddidntdoit is only true if we were to settle the very question were asking.

You are right in that we cannot know absolutely 100% that goddidntdoit unless we know exactly what did happen. However, since we don't know, we need to either simply say that, or pick the theory with the most evidence for it and say "this might be the answer". The god hypothesis does not have the most evidence for it, rather it probably has the least. It basically says "we don't know, therefore god". Unless you can demonstrate otherwise...

[Whateverist]

By the way, is the consistent misspelling of my name a mistake or a joke that has gone over my head?

Doh! Nothing clever I'm afraid. Just me relying on my none to reliable memory for spelling. Sorry about that. Is there a source for the name itself?