The Case for Theism

[genkaus]

Is there are source for the name itself?

Yes, but that would reveal too much of my personal life.

[Drew_2013]

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".

Good your stating what appears to be a fact and arguing from it. First we really don't know how much life there is or might be. We do now know that solar systems and planets aren't rare. So far most of the solar systems we have been able to detect appear a lot different than ours.

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.

Take it up with the person I was responding to.

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.

Is that surprising? You are an atheist right? But lets make our respective cases and let those people not committed either way decide. I already know your pov.

[JDFlood]

"Theism to me is a belief and an opinion, I don't claim it's a fact."


Stop, go no further, read and reread your above quote, until you understand it's meaning. This is where folks go wrong, they keep going anyway. Then get wrapped up in all this discussion that sound logical predicated on nothing... JD

[Mystic]

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

I think people believe first and justify later. But the justification was not the reason for their belief.

You may be grounded in belief in a Creator, but when try to articulate why in language, you come up with an irrational reason.

The argument you are making is an argument from ignorance. You don't understand how mindless forces can bring about design, so that it cannot. But scientist who dictate their lives to studying these things, see evidence of just that happening. For examples planets forming, stars forming, etc...

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 no evidence in favor of praise, perpetual identity, free-will, value or morality. It's rather a witnessed belief and part of our reasoning, we act with purpose and the purpose at it's root is properly basic even if it branches out with diverse things and complicated situations.

I think a good proof of a designer is the inherent knowledge of purpose we all have. That is one dimension of "reason" we humans have.

[genkaus]

Good your stating what appears to be a fact and arguing from it. First we really don't know how much life there is or might be. We do now know that solar systems and planets aren't rare. So far most of the solar systems we have been able to detect appear a lot different than ours.

So, moving away from the hypotheticals and getting back to the facts - while we do not know of any other kind of life that may or may not be possible in this universe or an alternate one, what we can say is "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".

Is that surprising? You are an atheist right? But lets make our respective cases and let those people not committed either way decide. I already know your pov.

If this was a court of law, your case would never go to the jury - it'd be thrown out due to lack of evidence.

[Drew_2013]

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?

If you don't want to play take your marbles and go home. But I'll let others decide who kicked whose ass.

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.

For the sake of new folks viewing this thread, the 'false dichotomy' I am alleged to have made is that all phemonmena or events are either the result of plan and design or happenstance. I contend that we either owe our existence to a planner and designer who intentionally created the universe for the purpose of creating life or the fact of our existence and that of the universe was an unplanned event that occurred not intentionally but by happenstance.

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.

No I never said anything about the nature of the existence of God. Such a universe wasn't caused intentionally, wasn't planned and didn't intend humans or life to exist right? Explain to me how apart from mind and intent anything can occur that isn't by happenstance?

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.

Did the universe that sprung up as a reaction to a divergence due so intentionally? Minus a personal agent who intentionally caused it to occur wasn't the event an unguided, unplanned occurance?

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.

No, if you really took some time to think about it you'd realize that if something isn't intentionally created, planned or designed to happen, if there is no thinking agent behind the wheel steering the car it goes off in a haphazard unplanned fashion. Sure if it hits a rock we might predict it will turn in a certain direction...but it didn't plan to hit the rock, the rock didn't intentionally throw itself in the path. I think most reasonable people would agree with me the dichotomy isn't false, that if something isn't planned intentionally, then it occurs unplanned and undesigned which is the same as by happenstance. How something could happen without plan or intent yet also not by happenstance appears to be a conundrum.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Hi, Drew, pleased to meet you.

If we're going to limit ourselves to known facts, fine tuning can't enter into the debate. That the physical constants could be different is a thought exercise, a 'what if'. For all we know, those are the only contants possible for a universe. The weak anthropic principle allows us to predict that there are no conditions in the universe that would preclude our existence, because we are here...and that is ALL it lets us say for a fact.

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?

Yes, I can't prove Santa or toothfairies don't exist, especially if they had defenders willing to do what apologists do for God: come up with ad hoc explanations for why they exist despite a lack of evidence for them. I don't believe in them, I don't 'anti-believe' in them. I do assign their likelihood a very low probability, but I could be mistaken. I don't insist that they don't exist, I insist that believing that they do isn't a rational belief in the sense of it being based on sound reasoning. It could be a rational belief in the sense that in some societies it can be dangerous not to hold that some particular proposed supernatural being actually exists.

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.

So you believe in God partly because of the fallacy of argument from ignorance (if you don't have an explanation, mine is more likely to be right)? I don't believe in God because of lack of evidence in favor of belief and because I've yet to hear an argument for the existence of God that wasn't either fallacious or based on unsound premises. As the definition of evidence suggests that it should be persuasive to a skeptic, I'm interested in finding out what evidence persuaded you to stop being an atheist...I assume you were an atheist, as you don't need evidence to convince you to believe what you already believe. Otherwise, you're merely a theist who continues to believe what you already believed and also believes that your belief is, in addition, justified by some sort of evidence. (Whew!)

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.

A weak agnostic only claims they don't have enough evidence to know if God exists, a strong agnostic claims such evidence isn't possible, at least in this life. They're talking about what they don't know, not what they don't believe. An agnostic theist doesn't know but believes anyway; and an agnostic atheist doesn't know and doesn't believe. It's my opinion that we don't owe our existence to a Creator, but I could be wrong.

[downbeatplumb]

Drew you contradict yourself every time you ask only for known facts then talk of god.

But if we have to limit ourselves to known facts then consider this.

The Big Bang theory states that the universe started from a singularity.

Singularities are known to exist as black holes.

Therefore using only the known facts we only find support for a materialistic view of the universe.

And isn't it funny that the meddlesome god that watches over all has been pushed back to the beginning of existence for even a glimmer of a possibility that it existed!

[Jackalope]

The Big Bang theory states that the universe started from a singularity.

(I realize that you almost certainly know this, but the language you're using here is imprecise and I'd like to avoid confusion with other readers.)

That's not what it says at all. It states that if we apply the known laws of physics to our observations and wind time backwards to the Planck Epoch, then the state of the universe would be a singularity. However, we cannot say anything about the "starting" of the universe - if a singularity existed, then it literally WAS the universe, just not in the form we know today. We know nothing about the start of the universe, if it started at all - or even if temporal concepts like "start" are even meaningful in that era.

[Whateverist]

Good your stating what appears to be a fact and arguing from it. First we really don't know how much life there is or might be. We do now know that solar systems and planets aren't rare. So far most of the solar systems we have been able to detect appear a lot different than ours.

So, moving away from the hypotheticals and getting back to the facts - while we do not know of any other kind of life that may or may not be possible in this universe or an alternate one, what we can say is "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".

What a funny methodology. Decide what you 'believe' the facts to be - or want the facts to be - and then argue about what follows from that. This is what is known as engaging in a rational discussion? Then anyone can dismiss your work by dismissing your initial premises. But that won't stop you. What do you think the odds are you won't be able to agree on the appropriate initial premises? I'd say very nearly one.