The Case for Theism

[Drew_2013]

2. The fact life exists

Again this might seem like a trivial fact but I don't think anyone disputes life exists. If life didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to debate whether we owe our existence to a Creator, its the fact life exists that raises the question whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend to cause life or even cause the existence of a universe that allows life in the first place. There is no condition that needs to true for atheism to possibly be true. There are conditions that need to occur in order for us to have a debate about whether a Creator of the universe exists. Two of those conditions are a suitable place for us to live and for life to exist. No one would postulate God doesn't exist therefore I expect a universe with life to exist. The existence of the universe and life are red flags that lead folks to question the narrative that we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend either the universe or life, yet inspite of neither the desire, the intent or the plan to create life, without knowledge of how to do it mindless forces stumbled blindly upon the formula to create life and cause a universe that allows life. Moreover if we are to believe the atheist narrative, lifeless mindless forces created something totally unlike itself...life. Yet the only way we have observed life coming about is through life. We have yet to observe life coming from non-life. The theory is that's how it came about but evidently we haven't been able to figure out using intelligence how to cause life that mindless forces are alleged to have produced without trying or knowing how.

If the universe didn't exist and life didn't exist its still possible a Creator who hasn't created anything might exist, but there would be no evidence to suspect there was a Creator. Under such a circumstance the atheists claim there is no evidence of a Creator would be true. The claim there is no evidence of a Creator is false. Now, lets be clear, the two lines of evidence I presented so far obviously doesn't persuade any atheist that God exists. However, evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because you don't agree with the conclusion. I know exactly why most atheists maintain vehemently the position there is no evidence in favor of theism. Most atheists will always deny there is evidence in favor of theism because they like to marginalize theism as strictly a faith proposition. If they were to admit there is evidence that favors the theist narrative then its no longer just a faith proposition that can be easily dismissed.

[Jackalope]

Sooo.... We don't know for sure, therefore God?

[Mister Agenda]

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.

It's not much like the current universe, but it's not like nothing at all, at all.

[Jackalope]

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.

It's not much like the current universe, but it's not like nothing at all, at all.

Considering that by definition, a universe is everything that exists, I'd say it looks exactly like a universe - but as you say, not much like the one we know today.

[Darkstar]

If the universe didn't exist and life didn't exist its still possible a Creator who hasn't created anything might exist, but there would be no evidence to suspect there was a Creator. Under such a circumstance the atheists claim there is no evidence of a Creator would be true. The claim there is no evidence of a Creator is false.

Um, no, it's still true. There isn't any evidence for a creator, this is just one big argument from ignorance.

However, evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because you don't agree with the conclusion.

You're right, it doesn't. Too bad your conclusion isn't supported by anything. The only "evidence" of your hypothesis is the lack of irrefutable proof against it, which is not evidence at all, especially against something unfalsifiable.

I know exactly why most atheists maintain vehemently the position there is no evidence in favor of theism. Most atheists will always deny there is evidence in favor of theism because they like to marginalize theism as strictly a faith proposition.

But it is just a faith proposition. Watch this. How about you subsititute "god" in your argument with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Magic Pink Unicorn". You won't have any less evidence for them either.

If they were to admit there is evidence that favors the theist narrative then its no longer just a faith proposition that can be easily dismissed.

But we'd be lying...and even if we were telling the truth, that would only support an agnostic deist position at best.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Um, theism could be true without a universe existing, unless you're saying that there can't be a God without a cosmos (and that would need to be supported). Both positions require someone to exist to hold the position. A theist is a person who believes at least one god exists, an atheist is a person who isn't a theist. Presumably, a God would count as a person who believes (knows for a fact, in fact) that at least one God exists, so theism is a position that can be held in the absence of a universe, while atheism cannot.

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?

Physical necessity. When a tree falls down, the timing may be unpredictable, but trees don't stand forever. Death and gravity are inevitable. The energy balance of the universe is extremetly close to, if not exactly, zero. In other words, we live in the sort of universe to be expected if the initial conditions were a quantum vacuum fluctuation, because the formation of physical laws were constrained by the available energy and matter: none or practically none. It might turn out that if there are multiple universes, they tend to run very similar to ours. I'm not saying this is the case (no one can honestly say what exactly the case is yet), just presenting it as an example of a possible universe resulting from necessity (albeit, blind) rather than happenstance: one where our universe had to happen and had to turn out much the way it has, because that's how universe formation works.

[EGross]

the fact life exists that raises the question whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend to cause life or even cause the existence of a universe that allows life in the first place.

There is one point that you touched on that you have not expanded upon.

before you can ask the question if there is evidence for a creator, one must first define, not only what constitutes evidence, but you need to define a Creator, since that word, itself, will get different responses based on how each person holds it. As noted here, it appears that you are defining God as a mindless force that sort of exists, unaware of anything.

Is that your definition of God? Expand on that if you will.

[genkaus]

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.

I'm sorry, are you saying that any of what I said was not factual?

This is what is known as engaging in a rational discussion? Then anyone can dismiss your work by dismissing your initial premises.

They could - but I justify my premises and any dismissal without similarly rational justification would result in them opting out of the rational discussion.

But that won't stop you.

No, it won't.

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.

I'd say the odds or agreement are irrelevant. If I can support my position and the opponent cannot refute it but still disagrees then it is no longer a rational discussion.

---

2. The fact life exists

Again this might seem like a trivial fact but I don't think anyone disputes life exists. If life didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to debate whether we owe our existence to a Creator, its the fact life exists that raises the question whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend to cause life or even cause the existence of a universe that allows life in the first place.

The trivial fact of life's existence is not sufficient to even establish that it had a cause. If the only known fact was that life exists then there would be no basis to assume that there was even a time when it didn't exist and therefore had to be caused or brought into existence. You are assuming a lot of other known facts such as life did not always exist and had to be caused without explicitly stating them in an attempt marginalize everything else that knowledge would entail.

There is no condition that needs to true for atheism to possibly be true. There are conditions that need to occur in order for us to have a debate about whether a Creator of the universe exists. Two of those conditions are a suitable place for us to live and for life to exist. No one would postulate God doesn't exist therefore I expect a universe with life to exist. The existence of the universe and life are red flags that lead folks to question the narrative that we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend either the universe or life, yet inspite of neither the desire, the intent or the plan to create life, without knowledge of how to do it mindless forces stumbled blindly upon the formula to create life and cause a universe that allows life.

Another underhanded attempt to sneak in arguments that have already been refuted. It has been established that the existence of universe is not sufficient grounds to raise the question of a cause of the universe - something you were unable to refute. We can agree that life was caused but your phrasing reveal an internal contradiction. Given that the forces of the universe are "mindless", i.e. they do no have any intentions plans or designs, it'd be impossible for them to be blind or to stumble upon anything. This is yet another attempt to presume consciousness where none exists.

Moreover if we are to believe the atheist narrative, lifeless mindless forces created something totally unlike itself...life.

Something we see occur very often.

Yet the only way we have observed life coming about is through life. We have yet to observe life coming from non-life. The theory is that's how it came about but evidently we haven't been able to figure out using intelligence how to cause life that mindless forces are alleged to have produced without trying or knowing how.

Again - the fact that we are not aware of the natural mechanism for the cause of life is not evidence that there was anything unnatural about it. In pretty much the same way that if a coroner cannot figure out the cause of death does not automatically mean murder.

If the universe didn't exist and life didn't exist its still possible a Creator who hasn't created anything might exist, but there would be no evidence to suspect there was a Creator.

A ridiculous statement. The very idea of evidence is dependent upon the existence of the universe.

Under such a circumstance the atheists claim there is no evidence of a Creator would be true. The claim there is no evidence of a Creator is false.

Invalid logic. If A then B does not imply if !A then !B.

Now, lets be clear, the two lines of evidence I presented so far obviously doesn't persuade any atheist that God exists.

It doesn't persuade anyone with an inkling of how logic works.

However, evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because you don't agree with the conclusion.

No, it becomes non-evidence because it does not indicate your conclusion.

I know exactly why most atheists maintain vehemently the position there is no evidence in favor of theism. Most atheists will always deny there is evidence in favor of theism because they like to marginalize theism as strictly a faith proposition. If they were to admit there is evidence that favors the theist narrative then its no longer just a faith proposition that can be easily dismissed.

On the other hand, theists haven't been able to provide ay evidence that cannot be refuted by a little bit of logic and a dose of reality. The reason why their position is marginalized as a faith proposition is because that is precisely what it is. If you were able to present some actual evidence, then you might have a case, but as of now, you have nothing.

[Drew_2013]

Hello Mister Agenda,

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.

I'll address that later.

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.

Depends on what you mean by proof. If you mean absolute incontrovertible proof something is true or false...probably not. In general there are three kinds of proof generally accepted. Scientific proof usually means confirmation of a theory by repeated observation and others duplicating the experiment. A very high degree of certitude but still not always certain. Then in the legal realm there is the criminal level of proof which is beyond a reasonable doubt. Not any or all doubt but reasonable doubt. It is a little subjective. Then there is the civil standard which is a mere preponderance which means which ever side of a question provides the better argument. Santa and Toothfairies can be disproven to at least a burden of beyond reasonable doubt. Its not as if any sane lucid adult believes in such anyway. I don't just lack belief in Santa if Santa is defined as a personal agent who deliveries presents world wide on Christmas eve I disbelieve it and can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

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)?

No the whole point of this post is to list facts that support my contention. Not what I don't know but what is well known.

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!)

At one point in my life I was a confirmed atheist or at least a very content agnostic. Again I don't attend any church and I'm not promoting any religion. It wasn't just the evidence for theism that led me to subscribe to it. I found to be an atheist is to substitute Goddidit for Naturedidit and I have no better reason to think nature could do it.

It's my opinion that we don't owe our existence to a Creator, but I could be wrong. Big Grin

Thats a reasonable position.

---

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.

You're already off the rails. A theory is not a fact.

---

Um, theism could be true without a universe existing, unless you're saying that there can't be a God without a cosmos (and that would need to be supported). Both positions require someone to exist to hold the position. A theist is a person who believes at least one god exists, an atheist is a person who isn't a theist. Presumably, a God would count as a person who believes (knows for a fact, in fact) that at least one God exists, so theism is a position that can be held in the absence of a universe, while atheism cannot.

No the point was for atheism to be true there is no God nothing needs to exist. For there to be people who don't believe God exists then yes people need to exist.

Physical necessity. When a tree falls down, the timing may be unpredictable, but trees don't stand forever.

Thats assuming the laws of physics and nature are necessary. Even supposing that if a universe exists it has to have the laws of nature we observe (which isn't a fact) according to atheism there was no who engineered and designed the universe to be as it is. If trees in our observation instead of falling down fell up then that would be a law of nature. Unless your suggesting that the laws of nature aren't just what we happen to observe but in fact they really are laws written into the fabric of nature but wouldn't that be rather antithetical to the philosophy of atheism? Because what except a transcendent agent could dictate how nature behaves?

before you can ask the question if there is evidence for a creator, one must first define, not only what constitutes evidence, but you need to define a Creator, since that word, itself, will get different responses based on how each person holds it. As noted here, it appears that you are defining God as a mindless force that sort of exists, unaware of anything.

My definition of God (or Creator) is the theism definition of God. The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

[Esquilax]

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.

Why do you repeat your initial (false) premise before even delving into my clearly delivered objections? Kind of poisoning the well, aren't you?

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?

If a universe was eternal, then it could not have happened by purely random chance, as there would be no point at which it did not exist.

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?

No, because the multiple worlds hypothesis dictates that every event causes divergences, even completely unconscious ones like, for example, earthquakes. In this case it is, in fact, more likely that our universe was created as the result of a divergence from a natural event in some other one, that is nevertheless something completely predictable and non-random, given powerful enough predictive tools.

This is why we say your design-or-chance claim is a false dichotomy; you're claiming those are the only two choices, but there are many, many more even within the realm of established theoretical science that conform to neither of those definitions. You're setting up two choices and hoping that everyone else doesn't realize there are more, and now that you've very clearly had two of those additional possibilities explained to you, will you admit that you were mistaken?

2. The fact life exists

Ah, shit...

The existence of the universe and life are red flags that lead folks to question the narrative that we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend either the universe or life, yet inspite of neither the desire, the intent or the plan to create life, without knowledge of how to do it mindless forces stumbled blindly upon the formula to create life and cause a universe that allows life.

Whoa whoa, let's take a step back. Why is it a red flag? The mere existence of a thing is not evidence one way or another, after all, we see things in nature that are very random indeed yet to all observers seem designed. There are rock formations that look like all kinds of things, and yet were sculpted by erosion, very much an unguided process; saying something looks designed only gets you to the fact that it looks designed, not that it is.

Beyond that, you're looking at it backwards. In accordance with evolutionary theory, life develops in accordance with its environment, not the other way around. It's not that the universe allows life, but that life fills the niches that are present in the universe.

Moreover if we are to believe the atheist narrative, lifeless mindless forces created something totally unlike itself...life. Yet the only way we have observed life coming about is through life. We have yet to observe life coming from non-life. The theory is that's how it came about but evidently we haven't been able to figure out using intelligence how to cause life that mindless forces are alleged to have produced without trying or knowing how.

I shouldn't have to point this out, but you've also never observed a god creating a universe or life, so this isn't really a point in favor of either one of us. Unless you can provide detailed information as to your own theory, don't start using current ignorance of ours as evidence of its weakness; we can throw that right back.

If the universe didn't exist and life didn't exist its still possible a Creator who hasn't created anything might exist, but there would be no evidence to suspect there was a Creator. Under such a circumstance the atheists claim there is no evidence of a Creator would be true. The claim there is no evidence of a Creator is false.

So long as you recognize that we have rebuttals. Your evidence is hardly incontrovertible.

Now, lets be clear, the two lines of evidence I presented so far obviously doesn't persuade any atheist that God exists. However, evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because you don't agree with the conclusion. I know exactly why most atheists maintain vehemently the position there is no evidence in favor of theism. Most atheists will always deny there is evidence in favor of theism because they like to marginalize theism as strictly a faith proposition. If they were to admit there is evidence that favors the theist narrative then its no longer just a faith proposition that can be easily dismissed.

Don't assume that your evidence is completely strong, Drew.

You're already off the rails. A theory is not a fact.

Stop conflating the layman's definition of a theory with the scientific one. In science, a theory is a framework that explains facts, and is in itself completely factual. A scientific theory is the graduation point of an idea, the highest status that one can achieve.