The Case for Theism

[Esquilax]

[genkaus]

Hypothetically or theoretically anything is possible.

No its not. The illogical and irrational are still excluded from hypothetical and theoretical consideration.

So if you want a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question I will concede that hypothetically its concievable there could be a set of circumstances in which neither design or happenstance is the case.

And since your premises of design and happenstance also fall under hypotheticals, they would fall in the same category as those set of circumstances. You seem to be getting it finally.

Will you agree that by that absurd standard, no dichotomy is true?

No. As I said, if alternate options presented to a dichotomy are illogical then the dichotomy would be true.

The fact remains though that for all practical purposes in the real world (not the imaginary hypothetical one) the dichotomy holds true.

As has been demonstrated multiple times - no, it doesn't.

What have you really gained by dragging out this conversation just so you can say hypthetically the dichotomy isn't true?

Given that your dichotomy itself is hypothetical, it can now be established as a false dichotomy. Not that it wasn't before.

The case I am making is inferential.

And your inference is incorrect due to your premise being incorrect.

As far as I'm concerned evolution is a fact...its Darwinism I am skeptical of.

Then your skepticism is about half a century out of date.

[Drew_2013]

[of monkeys and men]

Ha ha ha So this is what atheists do, every time a christian poses a question youguys can't answer you bann them... I would say that's pretty smart but then I would be lying because I'm just going to keep coming back on with a different username and the same question you "thinking" atheists cant answer... so the cycle continues and the unanswered questions remain... so please kick me off again you thinkers

[Jackalope]

Ha ha ha So this is what atheists do, every time a christian poses a question youguys can't answer you bann them

No. We ban you when you create multiple accounts, switch back and forth between them in the same thread, and give rep from one to another.

[Gonzalo697]

Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality?  In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment?

---

who or what determines which actions are moral and which are not?  

[genkaus]

I'm glad you did dummy this down to an analogy so I can see for myself how self serving it is. A more accurate analogy would be that you or others want to run 'my boy' against hypothetical boys that you claim can run at the speed of light, not real competitiors just hypothetical ones you made up for the sake or argumentation. Then because I refuse to run my boy against hypothetical boys you claim my argument is logically invalid.

Actually, since your boy is hypothetical as well, the analogy is still valid.

There is an article I have read many times that has had an enormous influence on me its called:

Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism

Do you even realize how well you fit the description of the pseudo-inquirer as given in the article?

[Angrboda]

[Drew_2013]

The problem is you can't use a theory to support yet another theory.

Why not?

A theory is an idea or a concept that may or may not be true. To support a theory you cite facts that comport with that belief which is considered evidence in favor of your belief (or hypothesis). You don't improve your lot to offer yet another unproven idea in support of your hypothesis since the theory your offering is also suspect.

Except it's not special pleading because that fallacy applies when an unjustified exemption to the rule has been made and your rule about design and happenstance being the only two possibilities has never been accepted.

Who made an unjustified exemption?

Secondly I think its a red herring because I don't believe the folks pining for some other option actually believe that the universe was caused by some circumstance that would be neither design or plan, they're just running interference to obfuscate the issue. I suspect your actual take on this is that mindless forces without plan or design caused the universe to exist and life is just the accidental by product or the laws of physics. I suspect this is exactly what most atheists think. So why hide and obfuscate. I don't raise objections I myself don't actually beileve in. Its seems disengenous some folks do.

Then all I can say is that you are the one being disingenuous. There are atheists who take that position and others who take a different one and provide justification for it. They have given no evidence for you to assume that they actually don't believe what they are arguing for. Its about as deluded as saying that atheists are just angry at god.

No one is actually offering evidence that the universe and life could be the result of some cause that was neither planned or by happenstance, they just want to argue its a false dichotomy based only on hypothetical scenarios that they don't actually believe either. There is a saying among lawyers, when you have the facts in a case you argue the facts, when you don't you argue smoke and mirrors.

On the basis that what makes sense and what doesn't itself is derived from the laws of nature.

Want to take a stab at explaining that?

Why does nature seem to act as if it is compelled by a set or rules?

Because humans tend to project their own nature onto things where it is not applicable. Nature is not compelled to follow a set of rules nor is it free to act as it pleases. Those concepts apply only to conscious entities - which nature is not.

If any dichotomy appears to be false on the face of it the bolded statement above does seeing how it's contradictory. If I made that statement I'd be hounded from here to kingdom come. By the way I agree humans do project their own nature into things which is in part why the methodology of science was created.

Correct most atheists would opine the laws we observe are not some blueprint the universe had to follow but are just patterns of regularity we happen to observe...unless they are raising an objection for instance to the argument of fine tuning in which case they do raise the objection that maybe in fact the laws of nature do have to be as we observe them, not that they actually believe that... but just because they don't actually believe something is true that's no reason not to raise it as an objection anyway and will argue the objection should carry weight even though they themselves don't believe the objection. I call it bullshit but thats just me.

That is just you and that's because you cannot comprehend that those two arguments are in fact the same. Nature is what it is. It does not conform to any external authority nor does it follow a set of blueprints. That is what necessity means.

You must be using the atheist dictionary again where words take on whatever meaning is convenient at the moment. What the dictionary mistakenly seems to think that necessity means is when something or someone is forced to do something by compulsion.

The fact that atheist does not believe in a creator or a creator's creator does not make the objection any less valid. The atheist is simply holding you to your own logic and showing how quickly you choose to commit a fallacy when confronted with the uncomfortable implications of your position.

Except in my case I'm not uncomfortable at all. If the Creator was created then theism is still correct.

[genkaus]

A theory is an idea or a concept that may or may not be true. To support a theory you cite facts that comport with that belief which is considered evidence in favor of your belief (or hypothesis). You don't improve your lot to offer yet another unproven idea in support of your hypothesis since the theory your offering is also suspect.

You do realize that we are talking about scientific theories right? The concept of proven/unproven do not apply there. Rather, if something can be considered as proven within science, a theory is it. Which makes perfectly rational for one theory to be used as support for another. In fact, it is done all the time.

Who made an unjustified exemption?

Nobody. That's why it's not a fallacy of special pleading.

No one is actually offering evidence that the universe and life could be the result of some cause that was neither planned or by happenstance, they just want to argue its a false dichotomy based only on hypothetical scenarios that they don't actually believe either. There is a saying among lawyers, when you have the facts in a case you argue the facts, when you don't you argue smoke and mirrors.

First of all, no evidence is required for that hypothesis, because at this stage, your position is no better than a hypothesis itself. You haven't provided any evidence for the statement that planning and happenstance are the only two possibilities - so that's a hypothesis itself and all that is required to prove it false is presenting other possible hypotheticals. Don't delude yourself into thinking that your arguments have anything to do with facts.

Want to take a stab at explaining that?

Naah... I don't think you are capable of understanding that.

If any dichotomy appears to be false on the face of it the bolded statement above does seeing how it's contradictory.

Except, the bolded statement is not a dichotomy.

If I made that statement I'd be hounded from here to kingdom come.

Because you wouldn't justify it in the very next statement.

By the way I agree humans do project their own nature into things which is in part why the methodology of science was created.

Yes - to prevent that from happening.

You must be using the atheist dictionary again where words take on whatever meaning is convenient at the moment. What the dictionary mistakenly seems to think that necessity means is when something or someone is forced to do something by compulsion.

None - that is my argument. Nature is what it is by necessity - not because it was compelled by something or someone external. Try and keep up.