The Case for Theism

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

And? Chickens have feathers and so do ducks. Another case of what would be a great line of evidence if you were trying to make a case for something other than your god.

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.

Oh for fucks sake, the anthropic principle merely states that our existence would imply certain things about our universe - specifically what is necessary for our existence. There is a stronger version of that principle, f course. The fallacy to which you think this refers states that these things were somehow influenced by our set for the convenience of our existence.

The puddle remarks that the hole must have been made for him, that's the fallacy. The puddle remarks that the hole must be a certain shape when considering it's own, that's the principle. Get your shit together.

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.

The weak anthropic principle does not state that it "had to be" but that it "has to be". The strong anthropic principle does not relate specifically to human beings, merely to observers of some kind. Making both weak arguments for some nebulous fucking god.

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.

I suppose we'll have to cross that bridge when anyone finds any fact which supports a theistic model. At present there are none, and you've failed to present any yourself as of yet to change that situation.

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.

Which theory competing with your hypothesis do you feel is in a situation where occams razor favors your position?

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

Precisely why your hypothesis is bankrupt, it has no such 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?

We are in no way entirely like our universe. We are, in fact, wholly comprised of it in every particular. You are made of the same stuff as rocks and rutabagas. You are remarkably similar to both simultaneously.

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.

If you were arguing for a living, biological god I'd humor you for a moment, but I bet you aren't willing to do that. If you aren't, you're also arguing for life from lifeless stuff. Mull that over for awhile. In any case, you might not predict such a thing, but why you wouldn't, and why your predictions should hold any weight at all has been left conveniently unexplained. We needn't predict a universe in any case. We sitting in a perfectly good one that requires no predictions in service of it's existence.

You've wasted quite a few words on an argument that could be stated in a much greater brevity, and has been roundly dismantled in just as few words. In any case, suppose I just capitulated to you in every particular of this argument for the lulz, congratulations, you've made a case for deism..not theism. Your god remains now, as it was before, absent.

This is the point, I suppose, where I ask whether or not it was these arguments that convinced you. Do these arguments form the justification for your faith in your theistic deity (whichever it may be)? Would dismantling these arguments also dismantle your faith?

[Tonus]

Doesn't the "fine tuning" argument also argue for a god who is beholden to those very limits? As I understand it, the argument goes that certain universal constants are tuned precisely as they must in order for the universe to support life. But that implies that god had no other option than to set those constants in exactly those positions. Had the all powerful and all knowing god turned any of the dials just the tiniest fraction to the right or left, the universe fizzles. Therefore, it doesn't stand to reason that god is the creator of the universe; it's more likely that he stumbled upon a "universe tuning machine" that was improperly tuned, figured out the proper settings, and BAM!!! Instant universe!

What's that? Where did the "universe tuning machine" come from? Damn, do you always ask such dumb questions?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd be more convinced of a creator god had we been having this conversation inside of a pulsar - without the biology required to be there. Then I'd have to look around and say, okay, you're right, magic. Why would such a being be a slave to biology or physics in any way? Why would his creations be in the same position of servitude? It's complete and utter garbage of the highest and most easily identified order.

[Drew_2013]

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

Sure the radio hiss generated by the universe is an example of chaos. There's no mathematical formula that can make predictions of what sounds are going to emit or find any pattern.

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

If I were to take a box of 200 toothpicks and drop them from 50 feet it would create a random pattern that isn't predictable. However, it isn't completely random or completely unpredictable because it still is bound by the laws of physics primarily gravity. If we dropped the box in space the pattern would be even more unpredictable. Barring the laws of physics or someone intentionally doing something this is what happens when we allow unguided forces to interact freely.

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.

Which explanation is more magical? The explanation that mindless, lifeless forces minus any plan or intent produced a universe that resulted in something unlike itself sentient life or it was the result of planning and design?

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.

Not sure what your point is.

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

Its a rhetorical question.

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'.

A better example from Wikipedia is

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The reason this argument is false is because owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich.

I didn't make the argument

If God created the universe then God exists
there is a universe
Therefore God exists and is the creator of the universe.

However this is a different case. If a personal agent caused, designed and created the universe such a person by definition would be God. I'm not making the argument that only God can create a universe with the characteristics observed, such a universe exists, therefore God created it. The argument I am making is more like.

1. There is a universe
2. There is life
3. There is sentient life
4. 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.

I am building a case from facts and inferring the existence of a designer creator as opposed to the other possibility that these facts occured without plan or intent. I'm not denying there could be some other possibility than God.

[The Grand Nudger]

Which explanation is more magical? The explanation that mindless, lifeless forces minus any plan or intent produced a universe that resulted in something unlike itself sentient life or it was the result of planning and design?

Sigh. Seeing as your planning and design involves magic....and seeing as we can't find any of this planning or design...then your planning and design would be the more magical explanation (in addition to being horrendously devoid of any facts or evidence).

-You are not unlike the environment which spawned you.

-"Mindless" would explain the actions of a creative god as competently as it explains the tumbling blocks of a natural chain of causality. Sure, we could invoke malice or incompetence, but mindlessness doesn't require any extraneous assumptions about our extraneous assumption.

-Your god would qualify as a lifeless force (but please, please disagree with me on this one.....).

[Drew_2013]

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.

Just assuming the universe is by design doesn't mean every aspect is completely totally controlled and that no random interaction occurs. When we build and design things, we build them to within a certain tolerance to produce a specific result. We don't create them to within exact tolerance.

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 was being facetious when I wrote that.

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.

I'll let any reasonable person decide if the universe is the result of plan and design or the result of mindless forces that didn't plan or intend the result. If you want to argue some other possibility then site your evidence and make your case.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh for fucks sake, let's cut right to it. You're a planner, a designer of things. As a planner and designer of things it is very easy for you (and I) to interpret things in such a manner. A palm shaped rock and a computer mouse are roughly the same size, and both are and have been used as tools. One required a designer and the other did not. You won't gain an inch on design and planning without giving us a plausible designer or planner. Even if you managed to give us a plausible designer or planner that still won't garauntee that you've correctly identified which is which, and what or who that planner or designer was. After all, one can be forgiven for imagining that the rock was designed for ones hand - it fits so well, and it's just so damned useful - and isn't it remakably similar to the mouse, that we know was designed?

[Baalzebutt]

I'll let any reasonable person decide if the universe is the result of plan and design or the result of mindless forces that didn't plan or intend the result. If you want to argue some other possibility then site your evidence and make your case.

We are reasonable people (almost by definition) and we have concluded, through reason and evidence, that the universe appears to be a result of, as you put it, "mindless forces". I don't understand why you are having such difficulty in understanding that.

There are very strong SCIENTIFIC theorems and mathematical models that support our position. Our position is the one REASONABLE people accept.

On the other hand, your position is supported by baseless assertions and wishful thinking. Your position is the one accepted by religious rubes who are desperately searching for a way to justify their ridiculous fairy tale beliefs.

And that's Jenga.

[Esquilax]

Just assuming the universe is by design doesn't mean every aspect is completely totally controlled and that no random interaction occurs. When we build and design things, we build them to within a certain tolerance to produce a specific result. We don't create them to within exact tolerance.

And? That still doesn't change the fact that you would be surrounded on all sides at all possible times by things that are designed. You'd still have no point of contrast, no naturally occurring things with which to make your determination of design. You wouldn't be able to see the forest for the trees, in effect. Mostly because each individual tree would also be a forest.

I was being facetious when I wrote that.

The fact remains that if you really stretch yourself you could come up with alternatives.

I'll let any reasonable person decide if the universe is the result of plan and design or the result of mindless forces that didn't plan or intend the result. If you want to argue some other possibility then site your evidence and make your case.

I FUCKING DID!

[genkaus]

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.

IOW, it has all the characteristics of everything known to exist.

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.

And then there is the third model, the fourth, the fifth, sixth etc.

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.

Except, that's not the anthropic 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.

Except, no one is arguing that to be the case. No one is saying that the universe must be compatible with conscious 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.

Except, there is plenty of evidence for that the universe had to be what it is, not the least of which is the fact that we do not know of any other way to could've been. Your theistic theory is refuted by your very own logic - you don't have any shred of evidence to support it. Your so called evidence supports all other theories equally - so there is no reason for us to pick yours over the others.

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.

I thought this was supposed to be new evidence, but you are simply repeating refuted arguments over and over again.

---

Not that I've noticed.

Don't blame your failures on me.

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.

When was the last time you opened your laptop?

Just looking at a laptop and turning it on would not tell you that it performs any specific function or operates in a specific manner.

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.

Nope. A conclusion doesn't necessarily have to be true to be valid.

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.

All these theories are equally valid - that's what you fail to understand. There is no specific evidence pointing to your pet theory of sentient design - in case of the 200 year old laptop or in case of the universe. Which is why, your conclusion is invalid.