The Case for Theism

[Drew_2013]

I use the word refute because your position is so weak that even the presentation of alternate theories is sufficient to demolish it. Your arguments are refuted because they've been shown to be invalid and/or it has been shown that alternatives with greater evidence to them are available. Neither science nor law can "disprove" anything in any absolute sense, but showing the multiple logical fallacies present in your arguments and the absence of any actual evidence is sufficient to disprove it as far as any disproof is possible.

Your counter arguments couldn't demolish a paper bag. All you have done in rebuttal is offer alternate theories few of which if any you actually subscribe to yourself and most cases conflict with each other. I don't get how you think that people who don't have a dog in this hunt, who are just impartial and are neither comitted theists or atheists are going to be persuaded that mindless, lifeless forces minus design or intent can cause something totally unlike itself to exist based solely on some theories none of which you'll commit to saying you believe is true. I can understand why such arguments would be persuasive to someone already 100% committed to the atheist narrative such as yourself for example.

These same arguments you offer could be applied to something know to have been intentionally created by a designer. Suppose a laptop computer materialized in the lab of some scientists 200 years ago. No one knows how it got there and no one is familiar with the manufacturing techniques of our time. 100 scientists look at it and just based on observation, turning it on, looking at the symmetry 70 of them conclude the object was created intentionally by a designer. They offer facts to support that conclusion.

1. The fact it exists
2. The fact it is complex
3. The fact it operates in a specfic manner
4. The fact the individual parts work in unison to achieve a specific result.

On the other hand a group of people disagree and believe the laptop was caused without plan or intent by mindless processes that didnt' intend to cause a laptop to exist. What do they offer in support of their contention?

1. Maybe it always existed (of course they don't actually believe that but the fact its a possibility that supports the conclusion already arrived at is good enough for them.
2. You can't prove its complex because maybe if laptops exist they have to be the way they are. Or if you don't like that counter theory we have another one up our sleeve this is one of an infinitude of laptops created by some unknown process and given enough time and chances one of them was bound to start up and say Windows 7 starting.
3. You can't say it operates in a specific manner unless you have all laptops that ever existed or will ever exist to compare it to.
4. See two and three.

The point here is all your counter arguments could be applied equally to things known to have been designed and engineered by a sentient being.

[Mystic]

Watchman argument. It's been rebutted.

[Cyberman]

Unfortunately it won't stay still. Obviously it's too stupid to realise it's dead.

[genkaus]

Your counter arguments couldn't demolish a paper bag.

Then your arguments must be weaker than a paper bag.

All you have done in rebuttal is offer alternate theories few of which if any you actually subscribe to yourself and most cases conflict with each other.

And shown why your argument is invalid and assumes facts not in evidence.

I don't get how you think that people who don't have a dog in this hunt, who are just impartial and are neither comitted theists or atheists are going to be persuaded that mindless, lifeless forces minus design or intent can cause something totally unlike itself to exist based solely on some theories none of which you'll commit to saying you believe is true.

I don't have to persuade them of anything but that your position is bullshit. Which is done by showing your position to be bullshit.

I can understand why such arguments would be persuasive to someone already 100% committed to the atheist narrative such as yourself for example.

Except, my atheism isn't based on these arguments.s

These same arguments you offer could be applied to something know to have been intentionally created by a designer.

No, they can't.

Suppose a laptop computer materialized in the lab of some scientists 200 years ago. No one knows how it got there and no one is familiar with the manufacturing techniques of our time. 100 scientists look at it and just based on observation, turning it on, looking at the symmetry 70 of them conclude the object was created intentionally by a designer. They offer facts to support that conclusion.

1. The fact it exists
2. The fact it is complex
3. The fact it operates in a specfic manner
4. The fact the individual parts work in unison to achieve a specific result.

Except, 200 years ago, the last two facts would not be known. And going simply on the first two, the conclusion of intelligent design would be invalid.

On the other hand a group of people disagree and believe the laptop was caused without plan or intent by mindless processes that didnt' intend to cause a laptop to exist. What do they offer in support of their contention?

1. Maybe it always existed (of course they don't actually believe that but the fact its a possibility that supports the conclusion already arrived at is good enough for them.

Given that it materialized in the lab, we know for a fact that that isn't true.

2. You can't prove its complex because maybe if laptops exist they have to be the way they are. Or if you don't like that counter theory we have another one up our sleeve this is one of an infinitude of laptops created by some unknown process and given enough time and chances one of them was bound to start up and say Windows 7 starting.

If you have only one laptop, sure.

3. You can't say it operates in a specific manner unless you have all laptops that ever existed or will ever exist to compare it to.
4. See two and three.

The point here is all your counter arguments could be applied equally to things known to have been designed and engineered by a sentient being.

Exactly.

You know they are designed not because of some stupid, inane facts like "they exist", "they are complex" and so on - you know that because you know about how they are created and you can compare them to other laptops in existence. If there was only one laptop known in the manner you presented, then it would be irrational to conclude a designer simply from the facts known. Unless you can show all those extra facts to be true about the universe, it is irrational to assume that it was created.

[Angrboda]

It occurs to me, that if a laptop were discovered 400 years ago, and someone showed people what it could do, and you told them that it had been created by God, or by magic, they would likely have been inclined to believe you, unless they attributed it to the devil.

[Drew_2013]

The fourth line of evidence.

4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

In other words it has many of the same characteristics as things known to have been planned, engineered and designed and is why in effect scientists are able to reverse engineer the universe.

I wrote in the original post...

There are two primary reasons I am a theist. First because there are facts (evidence) that supports that belief. Secondly if I were to reject the belief that God created the universe and humans I would have to be persuaded that mindless lifeless forces somehow coughed a universe into existence and without plan or intent caused the right conditions for life to occur. I'd have to believe that life and mind without plan or intent emerged from something totally unlike itself, mindless lifeless forces. I know most atheists prefer we just reject God first and then take it on faith that that our existence was caused by naturalistic forces that didn't intend our existence and that the universe also just came into existence for no particular reason. We should just assume that natural forces did it somehow. I'll leave it to atheists to persuade me such did happen or such could happen. After all we're not supposed to just take things on faith.

My opponents have stated that the explanation that has the most explanatory power is the preferred explanation.

Explanatory power is the ability of a theory to effectively explain the subject matter it pertains to. One theory is sometimes said to have more explanatory power than another theory about the same subject matter if it offers greater predictive power. That is, if it offers more details about what we should expect to see, and what we should not.

We have two polar opposite models that attempt to account for the existence of the universe; one that supports the existence of life, produced sentient life and also produced a universe with the aforementioned characteristics. The atheist model is the belief that natural forces, unguided unplanned without fore knowledge or intent produced what we see today. There are several lines of thoughts in this regard:

1. That some unknown law of physics dictates that if a universe exists it by necessity must produce one like we observe. In which case they would be unwittingly supporting the anthropic principal that some of my opponents claim to be a fallacy.

In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle (from the Greek, anthropos, human) is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.

I don't think any of my opponents in this debate actually subscribe to the notion the universe had to be as it is, there isn't a shred of evidence to support that belief but my detractors only demand evidence of things they don't believe, theories that support their belief as in this case, don't require a shred of evidence. They also would like the triers of this case to believe that alternate theories minus any evidence and which they don't subscribe to somehow refute the theistic theory.

2. That this is one of an infinitude of universes of varying characteristics and naturally we would wind up in the universe that supported and allowed our existence. Even though these two theories are mutally exclusive don't think for a moment that will stop them from raising the objection anyway. In the world according to atheism, if a fact supports the theistic model any alternate theory regardless of evidence, regardless if they are mutually exclusive and regardles of whether they actually believe in the counter theories they are offered in rebuttal. My opponents are usually fond of Occams razor unless it weighs against one of their pet theories. The explanation that multiplies the least entities is the explanation the universe was designed and created for the purpose of supporting human life at least compared to this counter theory that multiplies entities infinitely.

When considering these two alternatives it should be weighed which has the more explanatory power. If one were to believe a designer creator of great power exists one might predict that if such a creator could, they might create a universe, that causes life and sentient life to exist just as we create virtual worlds on computers. Who would say a Creator designer doesn't exist therefore I predict that mindless, lifeless forces without plan or intent would cause a universe to exist that results in the creation of something totally unlike itself, life and sentience? The existence of life and mind from mindless lifeless forces is totally unexpected. No one would predict that mindless irrational forces would cause a universe that is explicable in mathematical terms, that has to the best of our knowledge inviolable laws of nature that make it predictable and knowable and to the best of our knowlege uniform across the universe.

[Mister Agenda]

The fourth line of evidence.

4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

Would you give an example of something unknowable, or inexplicable in mathematical terms, so we can compare?

In other words it has many of the same characteristics as things known to have been planned, engineered and designed and is why in effect scientists are able to reverse engineer the universe.

Can you give an example of something that was unplanned, not engineered, and not designed that does not have many of these same characteristics?

[Drew_2013]

And shown why your argument is invalid and assumes facts not in evidence.

Not that I've noticed.

Suppose a laptop computer materialized in the lab of some scientists 200 years ago. No one knows how it got there and no one is familiar with the manufacturing techniques of our time. 100 scientists look at it and just based on observation, turning it on, looking at the symmetry 70 of them conclude the object was created intentionally by a designer. They offer facts to support that conclusion.

1. The fact it exists
2. The fact it is complex
3. The fact it operates in a specfic manner
4. The fact the individual parts work in unison to achieve a specific result.

Except, 200 years ago, the last two facts would not be known. And going simply on the first two, the conclusion of intelligent design would be invalid.

I think they'd be smart enough to figure out how to turn it on. They would carefully take it apart and examine the intricacies. They could take the CPU out and note it no longer works. They could take the memory chips out and note it doesn't work. But you say the conclusion of intelligent design would be invalid...even though in that case it would be true. Its your conclusion that would be invalid.

1. Maybe it always existed (of course they don't actually believe that but the fact its a possibility that supports the conclusion already arrived at is good enough for them.

Given that it materialized in the lab, we know for a fact that that isn't true.

Maybe it was an orange that turned into a laptop and you would say its still an orange in the form of a laptop. Or maybe it materialized from a corridor to an alternate universe where only laptops always existed. I mean come on in the world of atheism any alternative theory you can imagine is viable since it doesn't require any evidence it actually happened or could happen and you don't have to believe it yourself. And if you don't believe that I'll chalk it up to personal incredulity.

[Mister Agenda]

1. That some unknown law of physics dictates that if a universe exists it by necessity must produce one like we observe. In which case they would be unwittingly supporting the anthropic principal that some of my opponents claim to be a fallacy.

The weak anthropic principle is not a fallacy.

2. That this is one of an infinitude of universes of varying characteristics and naturally we would wind up in the universe that supported and allowed our existence. Even though these two theories are mutally exclusive don't think for a moment that will stop them from raising the objection anyway. In the world according to atheism, if a fact supports the theistic model any alternate theory regardless of evidence, regardless if they are mutually exclusive and regardles of whether they actually believe in the counter theories they are offered in rebuttal. My opponents are usually fond of Occams razor unless it weighs against one of their pet theories. The explanation that multiplies the least entities is the explanation the universe was designed and created for the purpose of supporting human life at least compared to this counter theory that multiplies entities infinitely.

In the world according to science, plausible hypotheses can't be rejected until they have been falsified. Unfalsifiable hypotheses can't be properly considered at all.

When considering these two alternatives it should be weighed which has the more explanatory power.

It is true that magic offers the most explanatory power, as it can 'explain' anything, but for scientific purposes, an explanation that explains anything at all, whether it's the case or not, isn't really an explanation.

If one were to believe a designer creator of great power exists one might predict that if such a creator could, they might create a universe, that causes life and sentient life to exist just as we create virtual worlds on computers.

One might with equal justification predict that such a creator might create a universe made out of chocolate with sentient life (also made out of chocolate). We can certainly create virtual realities made out of virtual chocolate.

Who would say a Creator designer doesn't exist therefore I predict that mindless, lifeless forces without plan or intent would cause a universe to exist that results in the creation of something totally unlike itself, life and sentience? The existence of life and mind from mindless lifeless forces is totally unexpected.

Well, there wasn't anyone around to expect it before it happened.

No one would predict that mindless irrational forces would cause a universe that is explicable in mathematical terms, that has to the best of our knowledge inviolable laws of nature that make it predictable and knowable and to the best of our knowlege uniform across the universe.

Yes, we were all very surprised when it turned out that no matter how deeply we look, all we find is mindless forces, all the things with minds are relatively recent.

And you're still affirming the consequent. As long as the premise of your argument remains 'If God, then the universe' and your conclusion remains 'the universe, therefore God'; your argument will be fallacious. You may as well say 'if poptarts are made of plastic, the unverse' followed by 'the unverse, therefore poptarts are made of plastic'.

No matter how many ways you say it, your argument will be this fallacy until you can have a premise in the form of 'If X, then God'.

[Esquilax]

Not that I've noticed.

Yes. The problem is in your inability to notice cogent refutation, not in the nonexistence of same.

I think they'd be smart enough to figure out how to turn it on. They would carefully take it apart and examine the intricacies. They could take the CPU out and note it no longer works. They could take the memory chips out and note it doesn't work. But you say the conclusion of intelligent design would be invalid...even though in that case it would be true. Its your conclusion that would be invalid.

Because nobody is justified in just assuming a designer the way you are.

Beyond that, this is the watchmaker argument, and it's invalid. Here's why: you can't actually use it to make a direct analogy with the universe. In your example the laptop exists in a world where it's possible to contrast it with naturally occurring things and come to the conclusion that it was designed that way; after all, contrasting it like that would be the only way possible to determine design absent the presence of the designer or the purpose of the device itself.

But when you try to expand that to a universal scale, all of a sudden you lose that point of contrast. Now, nothing is naturally occurring, and everything is designed. A much more accurate analogy would be that you find a laptop, in a universe made of laptops, on a planet solely composed of laptops, and you yourself are a laptop. How could you possibly determine design when everything around you and everything you could possibly know is likewise? You haven't reduced the chances of naturalistic, godless creation at all.

Maybe it was an orange that turned into a laptop and you would say its still an orange in the form of a laptop. Or maybe it materialized from a corridor to an alternate universe where only laptops always existed.

How is it you can imagine terms outside of your false dichotomy now, but when I do it somehow it's invalid? It's the same fucking principle.

I mean come on in the world of atheism any alternative theory you can imagine is viable since it doesn't require any evidence it actually happened or could happen and you don't have to believe it yourself. And if you don't believe that I'll chalk it up to personal incredulity.

Any alternate theory is valid in an argument with a guy who's insisting that only two theories are possible when that's blatantly not true. And notably, I gave you evidence for the alternate theories I provided, whether you bothered to read it or not. It's there, and it's present. Stop outright lying in order to make your position look better.