The Case for Theism

[ManMachine]

ManMachine, ever heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences? I believe I was taught it somewhere between 5th and 7th grade...

I have, yes. It's very appropriate to what I have been saying.

In terms of consequentialism, it supports my point about the lack of validity for what is best described in this thread as scientific hubris.

MM

[Esquilax]

Hey Drew, are we just ignoring the actual, factual refutations I gave you a few pages back? I can see why you might be wanting to do that: you do seem to be a fan of ignoring arguments in favor of repeating your own. It must be hard to do that with evidence sitting there right in front of you.

[Drew_2013]

Esquilax

Hey Drew, did you miss the part where I linked you out to a couple of sources describing the theoretical underpinnings of the multiple worlds hypothesis? Or are you just disregarding that because it contradicts this idea that the alternative theories we've been presenting are mere confabulations?

I saw the links. Here's what you need to do, copy and paste some relevant excepts from the links and argue what it means to you particularly if its a theory you subscribe to.

Incidentally, where's your evidence for your design/chance dichotomy?

Its self evident but we can get back into that when I re-introduce the fine tuning fact.

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?

And your third line of evidence is...
*drumroll*
The argument from personal incredulity!

You really think if we we're arguing this case before a hundred impartial people who are not committed theists or atheists that simply going to your rolodex of atheists 101 sound bites and replying argument from personal incredulity is going to persuade anyone?


in·cre·du·li·ty
[in-kri-doo-li-tee, -dyoo-] Show IPA
noun
the quality or state of being incredulous; inability or unwillingness to believe.

Synonyms
disbelief, skepticism, doubt.

Antonyms
faith.

Notice the synonyms are disbelief, skepticism and doubt and evidently what I lack is what atheists have in the ability of mindless, lifeless forces to produce life and mind is faith, can I hear an amen from the atheists in here? You've got to have faith brother to believe in the church of mindless forces. To question it is to have doubt which is a lack of faith which in the faith of atheism is a sin. You can question the existence of God all you want but how dare you question the prowress of mindless lifeless forces to create life and mind, those forces are our God and Creator and anyone who questions your faith or asks for evidence that mindless forces could do such is a heretic and a doubter and we can't have skeptics or doubters in the church of atheism. Can I get some amens from the atheists out there?

The problem with so called skeptics is they are only skeptical of the things they don't believe are true. But the things they think are true they swallow hook line and sinker without a hint of skepticism or a modicum of critical (or least of all) free thinking.

[Angrboda]

Notice the synonyms are disbelief, skepticism and doubt and evidently what I lack is what atheists have in the ability of mindless, lifeless forces to produce life and mind is faith, can I hear an amen from the atheists in here? You've got to have faith brother to believe in the church of mindless forces. To question it is to have doubt which is a lack of faith which in the faith of atheism is a sin. You can question the existence of God all you want but how dare you question the prowress of mindless lifeless forces to create life and mind, those forces are our God and Creator and anyone who questions your faith or asks for evidence that mindless forces could do such is a heretic and a doubter and we can't have skeptics or doubters in the church of atheism. Can I get some amens from the atheists out there?

The problem with so called skeptics is they are only skeptical of the things they don't believe are true. But the things they think are true they swallow hook line and sinker without a hint of skepticism or a modicum of critical (or least of all) free thinking.

Typically, you miss the elephant in the room. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid response to these questions and requires no faith whatsoever.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. The fact the universe exists

Excellent line of evidence, if one was trying to establish that the universe existed.

That might seem like a paltry fact in support of theism. Suppose I was trying a case for murder, the first line of evidence I would produce is a dead body. After all, I couldn't accuse anyone of murder if there was no one deceased.

Nor can you charge someone with murder simply because you found a dead body......

If the universe didn't exist there would be no reason to invoke the existence of God.

Still wondering why there's a reason to invoke god if the universe does exist.

Moreover if a universe didn't exist there would in fact be as atheists claim no evidence God exists.

Still haven't seen any evidence that any sort of god you're talking about exists.

In order for anyone to even think God exists a place for humans to exist must exist.

Well, thinking beings, I suppose requiring that they be human is myopic, in any case, the existence of human thoughts would again be a great line of evidence, like the one above, if you were attempting to establish that human beings existed.

There are certain facts that must be true for anyone to think God exists.

Sure, but do any of them have anything to do with the veracity of said belief?

For humans to have any reason to think God might exist, we must have a place that allows us to live. There are in fact several facts and conditions that must be true in order for there to be any reason to think the existence of a Creator is true. None of those facts needs to be true for atheism to be true. Atheism doesn't require the existence of a universe to believe atheism is true. If the universe didn't exist atheism might still be false (God might exist but not have created the universe) but there would be no evidentiary reason to raise the existence of God.

Actually they all have to be equally true, as you explained above. We have to be here, there has to be a here, there has to be a "be" .....for there to be atheists or atheism here.

2. The fact life exists.

Same as the above really, great evidence for the existence of life.

3. The fact sentient life exists.

More of the same.

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.

To be fair you don't really have a problem with a lifeless force creating something, life from non-life - or how different one thing is from its proposed creator, it's just the "mind" bit that seems to have you stuck. Good luck with that.

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.

A lesson only partially learnt through long hard experience.

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?

The one that only invokes those things which you call facts above would be the less miraculous explanation, almost by definition. The point at which you feel compelled to say "abbracaddabra" is the point at which something becomes miraculous.

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?

It's both.

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.

Designed and engineered to exploit the properties of materials and systems which were not. Without the properties of those material and systems the circuits would be useless as "computers" - so perhaps you've given us a little too much credit (not that credit isn't deserved at least in part) for what is more accurately a sort of cooperative experience.

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?

Again, lifeless forces don't bother you in truth (and to be blunt, I doubt that things lacking in plan or intent would either - If I really pressed you to demonstrate even the slightest evidence of any plan or intent it would be even more difficult than to present evidence for a god, which, at present, as far as I'm aware - no one at any point in human history has been able to accomplish).

[Drew_2013]

I'm not going to elaborate on this any, but in case it hasn't been mentioned, there's another alternative which needs to be mentioned. (Thanks to Min for the idea.) If one wishes to demonstrate that the universe is finely tuned for the existence of life on this planet, then one has to exclude the possibility that life on this planet originated elsewhere. (This hypothesis is known as .) It does little to demonstrate the uniqueness of conditions here on earth if you can't even demonstrate that the life in question came from here. Without that premise, one is calculating the fine tuning of a planet whose fine tuning may not even be relevant to the question. (It gets worse, if you can believe it. Perhaps life on this planet is uniquely matched to these conditions, not because an intelligent agent designed the universe, but because an intelligent extra-terrestrial race designed this planet's life to be suited to these conditions, or chose these conditions to match some pre-existing life form or life forms.)


Bon appetit, Drew.

I don't have to exclude possibilites that aren't in evidence. Secondly the line of evidence I have submitted thus far are

1. The existence of the Universe
2. The existence of life
3. The existence of sentient life.

Later I will re-introduce the argument from fine tuning as I make my case from facts in favor of theism why don't you wait until then to make your objections.

---

Typically, you miss the elephant in the room. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid response to these questions and requires no faith whatsoever.

I'd be happy with that response. It means their belief in the non-existence of God is an argument from ignorance. Just as I always suspected.

---

The only 'facts' in evidence here are that the universe exists and that the life exists. They comport as much with the 'theories' of eternal universe, circular universe, multiverse etc. as they do with yours. So, really, we don't need to provide any additional evidence when your own proves you wrong.

In your eyes I was 'proved wrong' before the case began. I know you love your own opinion but we already know your opinion in this case. I realize it may be a punch to your ego but I'm not attempting to convince you of anything.

And the objection would be overruled - since in this case those alternate 'theories' comport with the evidence you provided.

The three facts I've stated thus far
1. The existence of the universe
2. The existence of life
3. The existence of sentient life

These facts are not what one would predict if atheism is true. No one would say I believe a Creator of the universe doesn't exist, therefore I predict the existence of a universe, the existence of life and the existence of sentient life. Those are facts atheism has to explain away or offer counter theories of how such came about in support of their belief God doesn't exist. Counter theories don't cut the mustard. The only theory allowed in a court of law is the one theory the case is about. I can't offer unproven theories in favor of my theory. If I were to go to a judge and say your Honor I plan to introduce a theory in favor of my theory there is no God it would be inadmissible. Now in closing arguments if you think the existence of life, or the existence of the universe or sentient life somehow supports your belief there is no God have at it. Or by all means submit counter facts that you think support your case, that would be extremely refreshing.

This only serves to illustrate a point I have made. Atheists typically claim they are led by facts to the conclusion there is no God. Its not true, they are led by theories that comport with their beliefs and they're willing to offer theories in defense of their belief even if in fact they don't actually believe the theory they are offering is true! It would appear atheists believe God doesn't exist based on the fact its possible God doesn't exist. In other words its a faith proposition. But prove me wrong offer facts!

Evidence:

Any matter of fact that a party to a lawsuit offers to prove or disprove an issue in the case. A system of rules and standards that is used to determine which facts may be admitted, and to what extent a judge or jury may consider those facts, as proof of a particular issue in a lawsuit.

One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence [facts] is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence [facts] that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence [facts] that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence.

Since I am claiming God created the universe, life and sentient life it's obvious those facts are relevant to the case.

[pocaracas]

The three facts I've stated thus far
1. The existence of the universe
2. The existence of life
3. The existence of sentient life

These facts are not what one would predict if atheism is true.

Wow, there Cowboy!!
How would you know that?
Have you ever tried to run your own universe and it yielded no life, up until the point where you imposed some?

[downbeatplumb]

The three facts I've stated thus far
1. The existence of the universe
2. The existence of life
3. The existence of sentient life

These facts are not what one would predict if atheism is true. No one would say I believe a Creator of the universe doesn't exist, therefore I predict the existence of a universe

Objection, you cant predict the existance of a universe when you have existed in the universe all your life. I don't think you know what "predict" means.

the existence of life and the existence of sentient life.

See above objection.

Those are facts atheism has to explain away or offer counter theories of how such came about in support of their belief God doesn't exist.

Atheism has no such burdon. If someone does not believe in god they don't believe in god. They may have counter arguments but it is not needed. Conversely many theists probably most, believe without knowing any of the arguments for god in any detail, they have been brought up that way and just believe.

Counter theories don't cut the mustard. The only theory allowed in a court of law is the one theory the case is about. I can't offer unproven theories in favor of my theory. If I were to go to a judge and say your Honor I plan to introduce a theory in favor of my theory there is no God it would be inadmissible. Now in closing arguments if you think the existence of life, or the existence of the universe or sentient life somehow supports your belief there is no God have at it. Or by all means submit counter facts that you think support your case, that would be extremely refreshing.

There are a wealth of theories about how the universe could have started and the theory of abiogenesis is coming along nicely and evolution is as much a proven fact as gravity.

But even without all any of these I would not believe because the idea of god is silly.

It explains nothing.

If god existed outside of the universe what did it exist in?
If god existed without time how can that be?
To exist something must have physical dimensions and duration.
And its not just some force that existed in your eyes its an intelligent all powerful meddling impossible magic man Who sent himself to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself for a crime in the dim and distant past of eating a fruit!

This only serves to illustrate a point I have made. Atheists typically claim they are led by facts to the conclusion there is no God.

And the lack of facts for a god lets not forget that.

Its not true, they are led by theories that comport with their beliefs and they're willing to offer theories in defense of their belief even if in fact they don't actually believe the theory they are offering is true!

We can express hypotheticals, and why not. Why for example don't you believe the universe was sneezed out by the great green baggle monster, it makes just as much sense as your position and where's your evidence against it? I bet I could make up a position which is just as strong as any that you think supports any claim you make.

I don't believe in the baggle monster but does that make my point irrelevant.

No it does not.

It would appear atheists believe God doesn't exist based on the fact its possible God doesn't exist. In other words its a faith proposition. But prove me wrong offer facts!

I have never believed in god and have never seen anything that would make me start.

Since I am claiming God created the universe, life and sentient life it's obvious those facts are relevant to the case.

But god is not only NOT the only explanation, it isn't even a good one.
You are trying a god of the gaps fallacy, trying to insert it into places where there aren't that many gaps.

[Angrboda]

Fact. It is rational to believe the explanation which, on the basis of facts and logic, has the highest probability of being true.

Fact. In order to determine whether a specific explanation is "the most probably true explanation," one must compare it's probability to that of all other possible explanations.

Fact. Presenting an explanation as the most probable when you've not compared it to the probability of all relevant explanations is a misapplication of the law of the excluded middle (false dichotomy) and makes it an invalid deduction.

Fact. It is not rational to believe propositions on the basis of invalid deductions, therefore if you attempt to assert that your explanation is the most probable on that account, you are being irrational, and agreeing with your conclusions is irrational.

---

These are all facts, all of which you've attempted to weasel out of without just cause. Furthermore, your attempt to disarm them with irrelevant objections is strong prima facie evidence that you recognize them as a problem, and what they mean for your argument, and so you are likely trying to explain them away because they are damaging to your case, not because they are improper. Nothing more.



(And for what it's worth, panspermia, Penrose's CCC model, and the multiverse have all been entered into evidence. Your attempt to play the role of judge in determining the admissibility and form of these submissions is a rank bit of hypocrisy given your whining about other people trying to play judge, jury, and executioner.)

At this point, why you're still here is something of a mystery. You would have to be either incredibly stupid or incredibly deluded to think you have a chance of persuading an appreciable number of people at this point. Which suggests my earlier hypothesis that you are simply "practicing" your arguments here. I'm open to alternative explanations, as I'm not given to willfully committing fallacies in the service of prior held beliefs like you appear to be. (ETA: It's possible you're simply another "Liar for Christ," who is trying to persuade a select group of people who for one reason or another may be vulnerable to being swayed by arguments that are superficially or emotionally appealing, but not logically or scientifically valid. Your apparent unwillingness to disclose your theological beliefs, constantly hiding behind the "philosophical theist" label might count as evidence for that hypothesis.)

If you had some positive evidence that a god designed and created the universe (like a galaxy sized hand, for example), I'm all ears, but so far you've given all indications that you aren't actually going to present anything more compelling than an argument from ignorance. What's even more sad is you're obviously clueless about the actual problems with your greater argument (predicted, but not yet seen). I can only suspect that you will attempt to exclude those objections in the same way you've attempted to exclude objections so far, with a mixture of bullshit, hand-waving, and rhetorical tap-dancing.

[ManMachine]

I'm not going to elaborate on this any, but in case it hasn't been mentioned, there's another alternative which needs to be mentioned. (Thanks to Min for the idea.) If one wishes to demonstrate that the universe is finely tuned for the existence of life on this planet, then one has to exclude the possibility that life on this planet originated elsewhere. (This hypothesis is known as .)
[/b]

With the exception of Panspermia all generally accepted theories of abiogenisis involve the creation of amino acids by one process or another (perhaps more than one)...

MM