The Case for Theism

[Cyberman]

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 that's not true. You're throwing around words like 'theory', 'belief' and 'hypothesis' as though they're the same thing. Do I really need to post the NCSE definitions again?

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
  
  
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
  
  
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
  
  
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
  

You may also find the University of Central Florida's cosmolosgy web notes "What is the scientific method?" helpful. I recommend checking out the whole section, actually.

And you most certainly can use one theory to support another theory; in fact most of the time that's how science works. For example, Big Bang Theory (not the shitcom) not only derives from the Theories of Gravity and General Relativity, it would not and could not even exist without them.

[ManMachine]

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.”

Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

<smiles>


MM

[Cyberman]

So? Science advances as we learn new things. For instance, Charles Darwin proposed a mechanism for evolution but didn't know precisely how it might work. The discovery of DNA blew the field wide open. However it would take something pretty drastic to completely overturn much of what we know.

[Drew_2013]

That reasoning is no more sound than

If I am Bill Gates, then I am rich.
I am rich, therefore, I am Bill Gates.

Bear in mind I have only submitted thus far two lines of evidence.

Thanks. People who identify as strong atheists are a minority among atheists, but they tend not to scurry. People who are weak atheists actually hold that position, so they don't need to scurry to reach it, we're already there. If you hang around long enough you might witness a strong atheist telling the weak atheists that it's ridiculous not to come right out and say Santa is impossible.

In my vast experience, strong atheists run for the shelter of weak atheism once broadsided. Moreover ask any so called weak atheist by what % they think its true no God exists the invariably claim to be 99.99 percent certain. I didn't think anyone could be that certain of anything.

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

I am not familiar with that rule, and see no reason why it should be the case. You seem to think theories are weak constructs by definition that are therefore weaker when combined.

You support a theory by citing facts that comport with your theory. That is evidence your theory is true. As I mentioned in the original post, I am making a 'legal' type case in favor of theism. In a court of law even in a civil case offering a theory in favor of a theory is inadmissible. Besides as a practical matter I have been repeatedly told atheists have come to their conclusions based on facts. Its not true of course but it is what they say.

It's an accurate assessment that most of us think it's more likely that no design or plan is behind the universe, but if you think we're trying to hide that, then you've misunderstood us.

If thats what atheists think they should say so and defend it.

Yes, but I wouldn't say that is happenstance. I'm not in a position to pick a winner among the various hypotheses, no one is, but I certainly consider it a strong possibility that the laws of physics are constrained within a liimited, possibly very limited range of values, and thus aren't accurately described as happenstance. I don't think the origin of life happened purposefully and I don't think I've said anything that could reasonably be interpreted as indicating that my position is anything other than that.

No you have been refreshingly forthcoming. We can continue this dialog later as it will come up again as I continue to make my case.

If you say there are either one or no cars in my neighbor's garage and I point out that maybe my neighbor has two cars in her garage, is that being disengenuous in your eyes?

It is if you yourself don't actually believe there are two cars. Why raise a possibility you yourself don't believe is true other than to be argumentative? Secondly this is a oranges to grenades analogy. Unlike two cars in a garage which is a real possibility we're familiar with the notion something could be neither by plan or by happenstance is a foreign concept. Please submit some real life example (like two cars in a garage) where some phenomena is neither the result of planning or happenstance?

Why? On what basis should the laws of nature make sense?

On the basis that they've all made sense so far.

I was thinking more on an epistemological basis. But I will touch on this more later.

Why should we think it's possible to not have any rules? Conceiving of a universe without any rules is like conceiving of a theodic God.

Again I can guarantee this topic will come up again so let revisit it then.

Particularly uncharitable, since I actually agree with Krauss that it's highly possible that the basic laws of the universe must be what they are. Although it doesn't matter if I really believe it, only that it be a genuine alternative, if the point is that there are more alternatives than two.

In my experience atheists will play either side of this coin depending on the argument. They may raise the theorhetical possibility (again atheists seem to abhor citing facts in favor of their case) that this is one of a infinitude of universes with varying characterisics and we (by happenstance) live in the one that allows our existence. If their having a bad hair day they may opt (again another theorhetical possibility they themselves may not think is true) that for some reason the universe had to be as it is. I will later show that neither possibility solves the issue there attempting to refute.

If you're comfortable with an infinite regress, okey dokey, but since God is popularly posited as an answer to an infinite regress of causality, you have to kick the legs out from under one of the main reasons given for suspecting the existence of a creator God in the first place, if you want to go that route. I'm just pointing that out, he says, before you start to go on about how I'm just raising phoney objections to hide and obfuscate.

I am doubtful of an infinite regression of events and I think a naturalistic only explanation of our existence suffers more than a supernaturalistic explanation does. I'm pointing out the argument is moot because if true theism is true. Also theism is a belief in regards to how the universe and humans came to be, religion attempts to answer questions about the nature of God. I'm not promoting or defending any religious beliefs.

I don't know and I'm comfortable saying so. I haven't heard a proof saying an infinite regress is impossible and objections that we could never get to the present that way strike me as variations on Zeno's Paradox. Despite the paradox, we still get where we're going. It all starts going over my head when I consider that we have to talk about different times than the one we experience in this universe to talk about anything 'before' (not the applicable word since 'before' requires time to happen in, but such are the limitations of English) our space/time began.

Exactly it seems inescapable that a naturalistic only explanation can account for our existence. It isn't that a infinite regression of events couldn't occur per se the proof that its not the case is the fact we have reached the events were now experiencing. To do so we'd have to cross an infinite number of events to reach this time.

Just because an attribute has been attributed to a divinity doesn't mean only divinities can have it. You're well into semantics now. The Christian God says he's a jealous God, does that make jealousy a divine attribute now?

Lets say a supernatural attribute then.

Now for the dichotomy fix I promised. You offered happenstance and purposeful creation as the dichotomy, and I pointed out a physically necessary chain of causality as an alternative to those two. From what you've said since, I think it would serve your point equally well to make the alternatives purposeful and non-purposeful. That's pretty binary, and I think it doesn't subtract anything important from your point. What do you think?

It works for the sake of discussion. However I'm still skeptical of the necessary chain of casuality (just to be a nitpicker). How would we differentiate a necessary chain of casuality from design?

[Angrboda]

If you say there are either one or no cars in my neighbor's garage and I point out that maybe my neighbor has two cars in her garage, is that being disengenuous in your eyes?

It is if you yourself don't actually believe there are two cars. Why raise a possibility you yourself don't believe is true other than to be argumentative?

While I don't consider your analogy to a court case appropriate, as long as you brought it up, allow me to point out something. It is exceedingly common for a defense attorney to suggest alternative explanations for the facts in order to establish "reasonable doubt" as to the prosecution's story of how events came to pass. It is the prosecution's obligation (yours) to demonstrate that these alternatives are contradicted by the facts of the case. Any prosecutor who attempted to dismiss the introduction of alternative explanations by claiming that "the defense doesn't actually believe that is how things happened," asserting that it's "just a cheap legal trick," and not providing reasons for believing that that is not how things happened, such an attorney would soon find himself out of a job. Your objections make neither logical nor legal sense.

[Drew_2013]

Thus far I have submitted two lines of evidence that I have argued favor belief in theism.

1. The fact the universe exists.
2. The fact life exists.

And now I will offer a third fact.

3. The fact sentient life exists.

As I mentioned in the OP I'm not a theist just because there are facts that comport with theism, the same facts seem to contradict the atheist narrative (that the universe, life and sentient life we're not created on purpose) that however such came to be, no personal agent intended it to happen, it wasn't by plan or design. I'll let the reader decide if minus plan, design or intent whether the result is by happenstance since that seems to be a major sticking point for some. I would argue it is still a tall order for mindless lifeless forces to produce something totally unlike itself both life and mind minus any plan, intent or knowledge* of how to do it.

A lot of atheists say we should look for the simpler naturalistic explanation for things such as life and sentience and we should avoid claiming a miracle happened. But which scenario is really less miraculous, that the universe, life and sentience is the result of plan and design or the result of mindless forces that didn't intend such to occur but happened anyway? Lets compare it to the existence of a computer, would it be less miraculous to say a computer is the result of design and engineering or it was the unintended by product of the laws of physics that unintentionally created a computer? Before anyone blows a gasket I know in response you're going to say its an unfair comparison because we know a computer was designed and engineered. The point is in trying to avoid the supernatural miracle of a Creator causing the existence of life and sentience it would seem a greater miracle is being called for by claiming that mindless, lifeless forces without plan or intent caused something greater than itself to exist. Is anyone going to argue that sentience and mind isn't greater than the source it is alleged to have come from?

*For the sake of argument I'm going to say lack of knowledge but could something cause something to happen without the information needed to do so?

[Catechism]

I just hope there is a fence for these agnostics to sit on in hell.

[Drew_2013]

While I don't consider your analogy to a court case appropriate, as long as you brought it up, allow me to point out something. It is exceedingly common for a defense attorney to suggest alternative explanations for the facts in order to establish "reasonable doubt" as to the prosecution's story of how events came to pass.

Absolutely but note the word 'facts'. As long as a fact is in evidence either side can use the fact or physical evidence to make their case. What they can't do is make up some alternate theory based on the mere possibility such could occur minus any facts or evidence it did occur.

It is the prosecution's obligation (yours) to demonstrate that these alternatives are contradicted by the facts of the case. Any prosecutor who attempted to dismiss the introduction of alternative explanations by claiming that "the defense doesn't actually believe that is how things happened," asserting that it's "just a cheap legal trick," and not providing reasons for believing that that is not how things happened, such an attorney would soon find himself out of a job. Your objections make neither logical nor legal sense.

No but any lawyer worth his salt would object to his adversary attempting to introduce an alternate theory weaved out of thin air or even on the basis that some alternate theory is feasible. They still have to ground it in evidence or facts produced in the hearing. Even in closing arguments they'll get an objection if they start making arguments apart from facts or evidence brought out in the case. That is why jurors are referred to as the triers of fact.

[Mystic]

Drew_2013...I believe in a Creator/Higher power (not a god though) but here is a problem I find with your reasoning.

Before design seemed automatic without detailed explanation of evolution. And even then, it needed evidence, which now there is. But if you lived in the past, like long long time ago, you would simply argue on account of biology and it would be an argument from ignorance, but one that seems so real and manifest, that it definitely is the case there needs to be a designer because of design in nature...but we know this has been refuted.

What if in the future, there is more evidence and more explanations. This is why arguing from ignorance is not all too convincing.

The argument of evil is also an argument from ignorance. So don't feel bad Atheists do it too

[Angrboda]

No but any lawyer worth his salt would object to his adversary attempting to introduce an alternate theory weaved out of thin air or even on the basis that some alternate theory is feasible. They still have to ground it in evidence or facts produced in the hearing. Even in closing arguments they'll get an objection if they start making arguments apart from facts or evidence brought out in the case. That is why jurors are referred to as the triers of fact.

Except that in this case, we have expert testimony that these alternative theories aren't merely will o'whisps, woven "out of thin air." And faced with expert testimony on the one hand, and your lawyerly complaints that the testimony of the experts is "insubstantial," the expert testimony wins. Move on counselor, your attempt to cast doubt on the opinion of experts without presenting a single fact justifying your skepticism is noted.

An expert witness, professional witness or judicial expert is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder. Expert witnesses may also deliver expert evidence about facts from the domain of their expertise.