The Case for Theism

[pro sports5]

Why do us as humans need any emotions other than fear

[genkaus]

I don't have to exclude possibilites that aren't in evidence.

You have to if the evidence supports them as well.

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.

When you were proven wrong, what's my opinion or who you are trying to convince are all irrelevant. All that matters is that your facts equally support all the other theories as well and therefore cannot be considered evidence for your theism.

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.

Why not? These facts are necessary for atheism to exist - let alone be 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.

No, but we could say - since I believe in eternal universe, I predict existence of universe, of life and of sentience. Or same argument for multiverse.

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.

Not unless your god-theory is validated first.

Counter theories don't cut the mustard. The only theory allowed in a court of law is the one theory the case is about.

Wrong. Any counter-theories that explain the facts are admissible in the court of law. If the case is about proving the theory that the defendant committed the crime, then any alternate theory that points to other murderers or to natural causes is admissible.

Clearly, you know as little about law as you know about science or philosophy.

I can't offer unproven theories in favor of my theory.

And yet that is exactly what you do.

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.

It would - if it fit the facts.

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.

Don't have to. The prosecution hasn't met its burden of proof. There are other theories that explain the facts just as well - or better. Its not my burden to disprove your theory but yours to prove it. And you have failed to do so spectacularly.

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.

But given that it is an unproven assertion to begin with - there is no reason for them to justify that position.

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!

And if those theories explain the facts better that yours, then it doesn't matter if they personally believe in it, it'd still make those theories more valid than yours.

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!

Don't have to. Your own given facts support other theories which means your proposition hasn't been proven in the first place for me to disprove it.

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

Except, since those very facts equally support other theories, that makes them inconclusive.

[colossal123]

WTF are you babbling about?

Exactly, people want to believe in Darwin's theory of evolution but when it comes to the reality of the belief everyone is steps back... because no 1 wants to be the 1 to say we should let children die in the hospital or blacks in Africa to finally die off and lets us stronger species survive... but they shouldn't bother you because according to Darwin, morals don't exist outside of cultures. especially to evolutionists...

[Esquilax]

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.

And here I thought you were running this like a courtroom!

Listen, dude: if you want to demand by fiat that we don't use certain arguments then it's up to you to know what those arguments are before you do. I've given you proof to support a theory I introduced into evidence, read it or not at your leisure; the point is that I could do it. The multiverse hypothesis isn't some cockamamie bullshit I'm using as chaff to distract against your theory, it's a real scientific one that goes against the dichotomy you're trying to set up.

Given this, my disbelief or belief in it notwithstanding, you should change your arguments to fit the new evidence presented, especially now its credentials are on display. To do otherwise would simply be arrogant.

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

If it was self evident you wouldn't have literally everyone here arguing against you.

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?

If the shoe fits...

Besides, this isn't a courtroom. If it was, you'd be thrown out of it for attempting to be both the judge and the prosecution.

Notice the synonyms are disbelief, skepticism and doubt

I noticed it. I also noticed you're trying to misapply those words. Do you even know what the argument from personal incredulity is?

Let me help you: you are being skeptical, but rather than doing it right, which is to follow the evidence, you're being skeptical of the path that the evidence leads, because you just can't imagine how that would be so. The fallacy isn't skepticism itself, but that you're misapplying it. You're mistaking your own failure to correctly read the evidence, your own failure of imagination, as skepticism.

That, or you're being dishonest to try and score points.

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?

You're being childish. Stop it.

I think going back and looking will show which of us is comfortable in saying they don't know and which of us is dogmatically sticking to their position regardless of evidence.

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.

Have you, perchance, read a single word that we've all been saying so far? Most of us aren't even arguing for a position one way or another. We haven't been able to get that far yet, because we haven't been able to get it through your thick skull that, god or not, you're premises are all terribly flawed. Even the fucking undecided among us are saying the same thing: you aren't demonstrating what you keep insisting you're demonstrating.

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.

You fucking liar.

The argument from ignorance goes "I don't know about X, therefore Y..."

The argument being used against you, rather, is "I don't know about X, and neither do you despite repeated assertions to the contrary, therefore rather than sticking to Y alone, what about the possibility of A, B or C?"

To which your response is that A, B, and C aren't allowed, and therefore Y must be true because nobody else has any evidence. The only one using the argument from ignorance here is you, but you're using such a strong and baseless variant here that I feel the need to qualify it: you're using the argument from willful ignorance.

[Minimalist]

because no 1 wants to be the 1 to say we should let children die in the hospital or blacks in Africa to finally die off and lets us stronger species survive...

Origin of Species is online. Kindly show me where Darwin discusses kids in hospitals or blacks in....... Too late. You've been banned.

Bye, Asswipe.

[Cyberman]

I would agree that the belief in the non-existence of god/s would perhaps constitute an argument from silence if not necessarily from ignorance, so it's a good thing that atheists in general don't profess to have such a belief.

[Drew_2013]

Hello Apophenia

You have said repeatedly your not an atheist...just what do you believe about the existence of the universe and life and what facts support your belief?

Its ironic you bring up the theory of Panspermia, the idea that life was planted here by an intelligence is far more in keeping with the theistic idea than a naturalistic idea atheists prefer to promote. Also all it would do is push the envelope back, how did the life that planted life come into existence? But I'm not making a god in the gaps argument (the fact we don't know how life started) the existence of life it self is the fact I am arguing from.

[Esquilax]

Its ironic you bring up the theory of Panspermia, the idea that life was planted here by an intelligence is far more in keeping with the theistic idea than a naturalistic idea atheists prefer to promote. Also all it would do is push the envelope back, how did the life that planted life come into existence? But I'm not making a god in the gaps argument (the fact we don't know how life started) the existence of life it self is the fact I am arguing from.

So now that you have this question about panspermia in your head, I'd like to know why you don't apply the same question to the god you're positing?

How did the god who created the life come into existence? Will you fall back on special pleading? And if so, why are you so dismissive of the idea of an eternal universe as posed to you earlier?

[Drew_2013]

Genkaus,

Why would that stop me from reminding the 'jury' that your arguments are wrong and have been refuted?

Refutation means to prove something is wrong. Could you restate how you refuted (proved wrong) the conclusion I have drawn from three lines of evidence thus far?

1. The existence of the universe.

I assume you agree the universe does exist. How did you refute (prove wrong) the possibility a transcendent Creator caused it to exist?

2. The existence of life

How did you refute (prove wrong) the possibility a transcendent Creator caused it to exist?

3. The existence of sentient life

How did you refute (prove wrong) the possibility a transcendent Creator caused it to exist?

If you actually did prove that some cause other than God or at least proved it wasn't God who caused the existence of these things I will agree you have proved your case.

By the way, I asked you last time if in your mind its an irrefutable fact God doesn't exist or is it a belief God doesn't exist?

[genkaus]

Hello Apophenia

You have said repeatedly your not an atheist...just what do you believe about the existence of the universe and life and what facts support your belief?

Its ironic you bring up the theory of Panspermia, the idea that life was planted here by an intelligence is far more in keeping with the theistic idea than a naturalistic idea atheists prefer to promote. Also all it would do is push the envelope back, how did the life that planted life come into existence? But I'm not making a god in the gaps argument (the fact we don't know how life started) the existence of life it self is the fact I am arguing from.

Do you even understand panspermia?

It's not even close to theistic idea since it doesn't suggest that life was planted here by any sort of intelligence. And no, it does not address the question of how life came to be, just how it came to be on earth. Paspermia itself is as naturalistic as it gets. And you are making god of the gaps argument because the existence of life itself does not lead to any of the questions you are asking, much less answering.