The Case for Theism

[Japhy]

You sort of sound like an agnostic-theist or some such. Also a lot of this reads like you are making the case of agnosticism rather than theism. When I picture a universe with a God in it, it is very different. Mainly I see no reason that any type of God would keep himself hidden from everybody.

From what I can gather from debating believers here in the south, perhaps god wants us to choose to believe. Perhaps he remains hidden from us so that we MUST rely on faith. If he was here in our face every day then what would be the point? We would no longer be seeking him. I've heard this argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

In the case of god, as in everything else, excuses are like assholes. The troubling bit is when those same believers start to babble on about all the ways that god -did- reveal itself to them, in no uncertain terms. How convenient for them.

[Drew_2013]

This debate is about one of the oldest philosophical questions sentient humans have asked since the time they stopped spending all their effort and energy on just surviving. That question is how did our existence come about? How did the universe which hosts our existence come about? Why is there something rather than nothing? Are we the result of plan and intent by a Creator or is our existence and that of everything else the result of mindless forces that somehow came into existence or that always existed and eventually resulted in our existence without any intention of doing so. My opponents typically hate to frame the question this way because they like to pretend that they don't have a claim, just a lack of belief in the opinion we are the result of a Creator. They don't like dictionary definitions either but according to the dictionary theism is:

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism ).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism ).

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Theists believe a personal agent known as God caused the universe and subsequently human existence. Atheists believe there is no God and therefore natural or non-God forces are responsible for our existence. The truth is no one knows the truth of the matter. Theism and atheism is an opinion about the source of our existence and the universe. In rebuttal you'll hear a bogus argument about how this is a positive belief versus a negative belief and how one side has the burden of evidence and the other side doesn't. It's a dodge my opponents employ so they can pretend they don't have a case to make or a burden to shoulder. Assuming you believe the universe and humans exist and that our existence came about in some manner, if you don't believe a personal agent known as God caused and planned such an existence, then you do believe mindless mechanistic forces minus plan or intent caused our existence. To render an opinion in regards to this case, you need to weigh the two competing claims. Since humans weren't around to witness the universe come into existence both sides rely on what we do know to make their respective case.

The case in favor of theism is based on five facts and argumentation from those facts. Evidence are facts that support an opinion. If there are facts that support an opinion then there is evidence in favor of that opinion.

1. The fact the universe exists.

If neither the universe or life existed the claim my opponents make that there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true and there would be no reason to postulate a Creator. That alone wouldn't mean God doesn't exist, it only means there wouldn't be any evidentiary reason to think one does. However, the universe does exist and even if there was no life in the universe its existence alone would cause reason to ask how did it get there? What if anything caused it? In contrast it's not necessary for the universe to exist to believe God doesn't exist, there is no condition necessary for atheism to be true. There is not one piece of evidence or condition that needs to be true to claim God doesn't exist. There are conditions necessary for us to have evidentiary reasons to believe God exists.


2. The fact life exists

If the claim atheism is true, neither life or the conditions necessary for life came about by plan or design. Whatever forces and conditions that caused life to exist didn't intend for it to happen. To the best of our knowledge only sentient beings can purposely plan and design something to happen. Therefore the existence of life is at best the unintended by product of mindless forces that neither intended life to exist or for that matter the conditions that allow life to exist. More over if the atheist narrative is correct, lifeless mindless forces caused something totally unlike itself to exist...Life. I could point out that scientists have failed to duplicate the conditions alleged to have caused non-living matter to turn into living matter, but my opponents would jump all over me and claim I am making a God in the gaps argument. This type of argument is where there is a gap in our knowledge such as how life started or how the universe came to be and so God did it is inserted into the gap of our understanding. However, while my opponent can spot a God in the gaps argument a mile away, they are oblivious to naturalism in the gaps arguments they use profusely. Just as a God in the gap argument is to insert the explanation of God where there is a gap in our knowledge, a naturalism in the gaps argument is to assume a naturalist explanation in the gaps of our knowledge. It isn't necessary for a theist to employ god in the gaps argument, but it's absolutely essential for my opponents to argue naturalism in the gaps. They claim that life began by some natural unguided unintended process but since we don't know what that process is...insert naturalism in the gaps. They assume some natural unguided process is responsible for the universe to come into existence but since we don't know what that process is insert naturalism in the gaps. There are several reasons atheists can spot a god in the gaps argument but have a blind spot when it comes to naturalism in the gaps arguments. Since they 'know' God doesn't exist some naturalistic explanation must be true and therefore a naturalism in the gaps explanation is justified. I call that circular reasoning, my opponents call it freethinking. One last factor, as of this writing the only known, observable repeatable method of causing life is through procreation. It is an indisputable fact that life comes from life. This is important because my opponents claim they are lead to their conclusions on a factual basis.

3. The fact sentient life exists.

If the world according to atheism is to be believed, mindless forces also caused something else completely unlike the source it is alleged to have come from; sentient intelligence to exist. Mindless forces that can't think, dream, feel, create, design or act autonomously created conscious self aware sentient beings that can dream, feel, create, design and act autonomously. Something vastly more complex and sophisticated was created by something vastly less complex and sophisticated minus any plan or intent to do so. In other words it just happened to have happened.
As sentient humans we have progressed to the point where we can create on a computer virtual worlds. We can create AI avatars to interact in the worlds of our creation and as sentient beings we can create the laws of nature as we see fit in such virtual worlds. This is the closest model we have to creating a universe with unique laws of physics. In those worlds we are the transcendent gods who caused them to exist. We don't have to ask if the God model is possible, we simulate such ourselves.

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

My opponents often speak in glowing terms of how the laws of physics alone can account for all we observe. Why are there rocky planets that evolved from second generation stars? Because of the laws of physics and fusion that causes simple matter to turn into more complex matter. But it's not because something more complex came from something simpler, it's because something very complex, the laws of physics caused matter to act in such a fashion. The fact the universe has laws of physics that cause matter to act in a predictable manner is what allows the scientific approach to work. The laws of physics could be looked at as a code or blueprint that compels matter to act in a certain manner. It's a fair question to ask why are there any laws of nature at all, least of all ones that caused the existence of sentient humans and support their existence. The theist would argue there are laws of nature that allow and even caused the existence of planets, solar systems, stars, galaxies and ultimately life because they were designed to do so. My opponents have a variety of naturalism in the gaps explanations, all of which if true conflict with each other and none of which they necessarily believe are true. The logic is simple...since they know God doesn't exist one of these counter explanations must be true (or perhaps some other naturalism in the gaps explanation they haven't thought of yet is true).

A. The universe for some unknown (but naturalistic reason) had to be as it is. Although my opponents raise this naturalism in the gaps explanation, I suspect it's the explanation they believe in the least. At best all it does is the push the envelope back one step and we'd still wonder why if a universe comes into existence minus any plan or design there is some unknown characteristic that causes the universe to be as it is. Secondly, if the universe for some reason had to be as it is, how could you tell the difference between that and a universe that was designed to be as it is?

B. This is one of an infinitude of universes with varying characteristics and we find ourselves in the one with the right attributes for life. This is the ultimate time and chance naturalism in the gaps explanation. We don't know if there are other universes or how they came about or if they do have varying characteristics. My opponents who claim to be led by the facts to conclude there is no God, are in reality lead by dubious theories they don't even claim to believe in.

C. We got lucky. If it's true there is no planner designer who is responsible for the existence of the universe this is the most likely explanation regardless of how unlikely it is that by chance alone mindless forces blindly stumbled upon the formula to create planets, solar systems, stars and galaxies minus any intention of doing so.

D. My personal favorite. The universe popped into existence uncaused out of nothing. I like this one the best because my opponents often deride theism as invoking magic yet offer this counter explanation as if it isn't magical.

There are many other counter naturalism in the gaps explanations that all hold something in common, none of them are known to be true and even the person raising the objection may not actually believe they are true.

5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.

In his book 'Just Six Numbers' the deep forces that shape the universe, highly respected astrophysicist (and atheist) Martin Rees explains each constant in depth and the consequences if any of these constants were slightly different. So mind numbingly narrow is the degree of precision needed that as a result he concludes this is one of an infinitude of universes all with different characteristics and as a result we live in the universe with the right 'numbers'. A simpler explanation that doesn't needlessly multiply entities (to infinity in this case) is that the constants were intentionally designed to fall within a range that allows planets, stars and galaxies to exist.

If atheists were actually looking for evidence that supports the belief that a personal agent caused and designed the universe to support life this would be such evidence. It is an earmark of design when personal agents such as humans create contrivances such as a computer or a car or a nuclear plant, that in order for the contrivance to work properly, it must fall in a narrow range of characteristics for the contrivance to work as designed.


Martin Rees's Six Numbers

Martin Rees, in his book Just Six Numbers, mulls over the following six dimensionless constants, whose values he deems fundamental to present-day physical theory and the known structure of the universe:

N≈1036: the ratio of the fine structure constant (the dimensionless coupling constant for electromagnetism) to the gravitational coupling constant, the latter defined using two protons. In Barrow and Tipler (1986) and elsewhere in Wikipedia, this ratio is denoted α/αG. N governs the relative importance of gravity and electrostatic attraction/repulsion in explaining the properties of baryonic matter;[3]
ε≈0.007: The fraction of the mass of four protons that is released as energy when fused into a helium nucleus. ε governs the energy output of stars, and is determined by the coupling constant for the strong force;[4]
Ω ≈ 0.3: the ratio of the actual density of the universe to the critical (minimum) density required for the universe to eventually collapse under its gravity. Ω determines the ultimate fate of the universe. If Ω>1, the universe will experience a Big Crunch. If Ω<1, the universe will expand forever;[3]
λ ≈ 0.7: The ratio of the energy density of the universe, due to the cosmological constant, to the critical density of the universe. Others denote this ratio by \Omega_{\Lambda};[5]
Q ≈ 10– 5: The energy required to break up and disperse an instance of the largest known structures in the universe, namely a galactic cluster or supercluster, expressed as a fraction of the energy equivalent to the rest mass m of that structure, namely mc2;[6]
D = 3: the number of macroscopic spatial dimensions.

N and ε govern the fundamental interactions of physics. The other constants (D excepted) govern the size, age, and expansion of the universe. These five constants must be estimated empirically. D, on the other hand, is necessarily a nonzero natural number and cannot be measured. Hence most physicists would not deem it a dimensionless physical constant of the sort discussed in this entry. There are also compelling physical and mathematical reasons why D = 3.

Any plausible fundamental physical theory must be consistent with these six constants, and must either derive their values from the mathematics of the theory, or accept their values as empirical.


The counter arguments are essentially the same as above.


When we create a hypothesis that attempts to explain a phenomena that wasn't directly observed, we propose models and see which one lines up best with the available facts and data. The model that best explains the observed phenomena and concurs with the available facts is the preferred model. The theist claim is that the universe and the attendant laws of nature were not the result of some mindless process that fortuitously got it right but instead was the product of planning and design. Theism offers an explanation that accounts for our existence and the existence of the universe, why sentient life exists and why the conditions and characteristics necessary for such to obtain resulted.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pretty sure everyone's already been over this...but.

1. The existence of the universe isn't evidence for the accuracy of either a belief in god - a lack of belief in god - or an active disbelief in god.

However, the universe does exist and even if there was no life in the universe its existence alone would cause reason to ask how did it get there?
-Who would be doing the asking?

What if anything caused it? In contrast it's not necessary for the universe to exist to believe God doesn't exist,
-It strains the mind to see how anyone would be around to believe anything if the universe did not exist Drew.

there is no condition necessary for atheism to be true.
-There is one, for atheism to be true a person cannot believe in a god. Similarly, if we wanted to use your argument from sympathetic definitions line of reasoning, for atheism to be true, there would have to be no god.

There is not one piece of evidence or condition that needs to be true to claim God doesn't exist.
-Well, that's true, people can claim whatever they like. The same is equally true of theism.

There are conditions necessary for us to have evidentiary reasons to believe God exists.
-Agreed (in a rough sort of way)

You could probably trim the entirety of 1 down to that last line. But I guess then you couldn't call it "The universe exists".

---

2. The fact life exists

If the claim atheism is true, neither life or the conditions necessary for life came about by plan or design.
-Well, that doesn't actually follow.....but you'll probably find plenty of atheists who would be comfortable with it anyway. If you were worried about getting called out you could modify it by adding "by plan or design -from a god-"

Whatever forces and conditions that caused life to exist didn't intend for it to happen.
-Again that doesn't follow and for the same reason as above. Trim or modify?

To the best of our knowledge only sentient beings can purposely plan and design something to happen.
-You'll probably be reminded that some animals are planners, toolmakers, etc. Whether or not you would lump them in as sentient is up to you

Therefore the existence of life is at best the unintended by product of mindless forces that neither intended life to exist or for that matter the conditions that allow life to exist.
-Not sure what the therefore is doing there, therefore from what? If the atheist position is correct - the only thing that cannot be the cause for any of this is a god. Anything else is game. Mind-ful- forces are still fine. Do I believe that a mind was behind all of this? No, but that doesn't matter, because it's your argument and you want to keep it nice and tight, right?.


More over if the atheist narrative is correct, lifeless mindless forces caused something totally unlike itself to exist...Life.
-You;ve been correctedon this so many times it's painful to see it here. Life is not totally unlike "the universe". It's made entirely of it.

I could point out that scientists have failed to duplicate the conditions alleged to have caused non-living matter to turn into living matter, but my opponents would jump all over me and claim I am making a God in the gaps argument.
-Because you would be. So trim that?

This type of argument is where there is a gap in our knowledge such as how life started or how the universe came to be and so God did it is inserted into the gap of our understanding. However, while my opponent can spot a God in the gaps argument a mile away, they are oblivious to naturalism in the gaps arguments they use profusely.
-You're starting to list towards attacking the position of another instead of establishing your own. In any case, the position of science is that "we don't know"

Just as a God in the gap argument is to insert the explanation of God where there is a gap in our knowledge, a naturalism in the gaps argument is to assume a naturalist explanation in the gaps of our knowledge. It isn't necessary for a theist to employ god in the gaps argument, but it's absolutely essential for my opponents to argue naturalism in the gaps. They claim that life began by some natural unguided unintended process but since we don't know what that process is...insert naturalism in the gaps.
-I think, before you go off the rails here, that you might want to familiarize yourself with the subject - it's gone far beyond an assumption. I'm also going to have to point out that if this is a case for theism - a case against science or any particular field of study isn't going to g very far.

They assume some natural unguided process is responsible for the universe to come into existence but since we don't know what that process is insert naturalism in the gaps.
-Actually, the answer is, again, "we don;t know"

There are several reasons atheists can spot a god in the gaps argument but have a blind spot when it comes to naturalism in the gaps arguments. Since they 'know' God doesn't exist some naturalistic explanation must be true and therefore a naturalism in the gaps explanation is justified. I call that circular reasoning, my opponents call it freethinking. One last factor, as of this writing the only known, observable repeatable method of causing life is through procreation. It is an indisputable fact that life comes from life. This is important because my opponents claim they are lead to their conclusions on a factual basis.
-That's going to be a very inconvenient statement for you later. You're going to have to address how god procreated, and some parts of it's biology...when you get around to making a case for theism.

Ultimately, I'm not sure where you where going to start supporting theism in any of this, so maybe this entire section can be trimmed?

---

3. The fact sentient life exists.

If the world according to atheism is to be believed, mindless forces also caused something else completely unlike the source it is alleged to have come from; sentient intelligence to exist. Mindless forces that can't think, dream, feel, create, design or act autonomously created conscious self aware sentient beings that can dream, feel, create, design and act autonomously. Something vastly more complex and sophisticated was created by something vastly less complex and sophisticated minus any plan or intent to do so. In other words it just happened to have happened.
-Your problem with this being what, precisely?

As sentient humans we have progressed to the point where we can create on a computer virtual worlds. We can create AI avatars to interact in the worlds of our creation and as sentient beings we can create the laws of nature as we see fit in such virtual worlds. This is the closest model we have to creating a universe with unique laws of physics. In those worlds we are the transcendent gods who caused them to exist. We don't have to ask if the God model is possible, we simulate such ourselves.
-So, programmers ergo god model possible? Sorry to burst your bubble. But the programmer doesn't have to be a god. If you're hoping to establish that this universe is a simulation, well....that's going to require something extra

Again, I don't see where the case for theism is even advanced by anything in this section -which feels like a subsection of 2, quite frankly. Trim?

---

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

My opponents often speak in glowing terms of how the laws of physics alone can account for all we observe. Why are there rocky planets that evolved from second generation stars? Because of the laws of physics and fusion that causes simple matter to turn into more complex matter. But it's not because something more complex came from something simpler, it's because something very complex, the laws of physics caused matter to act in such a fashion. The fact the universe has laws of physics that cause matter to act in a predictable manner is what allows the scientific approach to work. The laws of physics could be looked at as a code or blueprint that compels matter to act in a certain manner. It's a fair question to ask why are there any laws of nature at all, least of all ones that caused the existence of sentient humans and support their existence.
-Physics not being one of my bigger interests or strengths someone else will have to fact check this one for you.

The theist would argue there are laws of nature that allow and even caused the existence of planets, solar systems, stars, galaxies and ultimately life because they were designed to do so.
-Then argue it.

My opponents have a variety of naturalism in the gaps explanations, all of which if true conflict with each other and none of which they necessarily believe are true. The logic is simple...since they know God doesn't exist one of these counter explanations must be true (or perhaps some other naturalism in the gaps explanation they haven't thought of yet is true).
-Again, you won't make a case for theism by attacking the position of another. I cannot (and should not have to) stress this any more.

---

5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
-Going to be snipping the majority of this one, nothing to objectionable - wording could be more precise.

The counter arguments are essentially the same as above.


When we create a hypothesis that attempts to explain a phenomena that wasn't directly observed, we propose models and see which one lines up best with the available facts and data. The model that best explains the observed phenomena and concurs with the available facts is the preferred model.
-Here again I see nothing objectionable

The theist claim is that the universe and the attendant laws of nature were not the result of some mindless process that fortuitously got it right but instead was the product of planning and design. Theism offers an explanation that accounts for our existence and the existence of the universe, why sentient life exists and why the conditions and characteristics necessary for such to obtain resulted.
-The trouble, especially if you;re going to follow the above with this...is that you haven't done any lining up at all. To make it worse, you haven't even attempted to explain why theism offers any explanation - let alone the best explanation for observed phenoma....nor have you demonstrated that theism concurs with any available facts. Now, I would suggest that this probably has something to do with you spending all of your time talking about atheism and naturalism........

[Darkstar]

Don't you think it's more unusual for an infinite god to exist for no reason than a finite universe to exist for no reason? Just pointing out the obvious.

[LukeMC]

I haven't been on the boards in a while and I haven't read this thread in its entirety, but I feel like chiming in at this stage. Let me start at the end.

The theist claim is that the universe and the attendant laws of nature were not the result of some mindless process that fortuitously got it right but instead was the product of planning and design.

The universe didn't get it "right". There is no "right". The claim that sentient life is a goal, or even that it is desirable, is simply a human-centric manipulation of the story of the universe told from the perspective of humans being the center of all things valuable. The problem with your summary is that you suppose human value to be so high that a 13.7 billion year old, 47 billion light year radius universe had to be carefully designed to allow a few small critters on a rock to write poems and watch sunsets. We didn't "get lucky". We just happen to enjoy life and so now you're taking the position of defining the entire universe in terms of that fact.

Theists believe a personal agent known as God caused the universe and subsequently human existence. Atheists believe there is no God and therefore natural or non-God forces are responsible for our existence. The truth is no one knows the truth of the matter. Theism and atheism is an opinion about the source of our existence and the universe.

The origin of the universe is such an incalculably difficult subject to comprehend that neither of us can possibly hope to come up with a satisfactory answer. Theists claim that some intelligent force created it. I on the other hand cannot presume to have an opinion on this, and deem your claim to be as indefensible as any. I don't believe in a "naturalist" origin of the universe- I have no idea at all how the universe came about. And neither do you. This is why an atheist must call you out when you make a positive claim. It's not that I deny God in favour of a godless origin- I just cannot comment. If somebody was to say "the universe came about unintentionally and through random means" then this too would be overstepping the barrier of what we can reasonably posit.

It's a dodge my opponents employ so they can pretend they don't have a case to make or a burden to shoulder.

I don't. What, do you think I'm a genius physicist who has a plausible answer for the origin of the universe? This is very disingenuous. I truly and genuinely do not have an answer for the question of existence.

Assuming you believe the universe and humans exist and that our existence came about in some manner, if you don't believe a personal agent known as God caused and planned such an existence, then you do believe mindless mechanistic forces minus plan or intent caused our existence.

Either the universe is a product of intention or is not- of course you are right about this. Either claim is more than one can defend.

1. The fact the universe exists.

In contrast it's not necessary for the universe to exist to believe God doesn't exist, there is no condition necessary for atheism to be true. There is not one piece of evidence or condition that needs to be true to claim God doesn't exist. There are conditions necessary for us to have evidentiary reasons to believe God exists.

You seem to contradict yourself here by saying that no evidence is necessary for atheism to be true. This means that atheism is not a claim based on evidence, but rather it rests on the lack of evidence for a creative agent- this is precisely what you argued against earlier in your post.

2. The fact life exists

If the claim atheism is true, neither life or the conditions necessary for life came about by plan or design. Whatever forces and conditions that caused life to exist didn't intend for it to happen. To the best of our knowledge only sentient beings can purposely plan and design something to happen. Therefore the existence of life is at best the unintended by product of mindless forces that neither intended life to exist or for that matter the conditions that allow life to exist.

Yes. Or rather, there is no reason to argue that a creative agent masterminded what we see.

More over if the atheist narrative is correct, lifeless mindless forces caused something totally unlike itself to exist...Life.

This is no more interesting than steam ,a gas, coming from ice which, being a solid, is quite unlike steam. The properties of organic molecules are no different to the properties of dead matter. They just happen to behave in a way that we recognize and call "life". Again, you're being human-centric and giving undue treatment to a phenomena simply because you personally value it.

Just as a God in the gap argument is to insert the explanation of God where there is a gap in our knowledge, a naturalism in the gaps argument is to assume a naturalist explanation in the gaps of our knowledge.

This is purely ridiculous. God of the gaps is the claim that because scientists cannot explain a phenomenon, god must exist and must be the answer to the puzzle. A basic study of scientific history will shed light on the God of the gaps legacy. The "atheist" take on the matter would be to make no claim at all but rather investigate the situation empirically until suitable evidence is found. To claim that this "assumes naturalism" is a nonsensical statement. Anything that can be tested and observed is by definition "natural" and so of course we expect that when we investigate a situation, we will find a "natural" answer. This has nothing at all to do with a creative agent.

They claim that life began by some natural unguided unintended process but since we don't know what that process is...insert naturalism in the gaps. They assume some natural unguided process is responsible for the universe to come into existence but since we don't know what that process is insert naturalism in the gaps.

No. Investigate the gaps.

There are several reasons atheists can spot a god in the gaps argument but have a blind spot when it comes to naturalism in the gaps arguments. Since they 'know' God doesn't exist some naturalistic explanation must be true and therefore a naturalism in the gaps explanation is justified.

We expect an explanation to exist and so we investigate to uncover an explanation. This only assumes that the universe is investigable. God of the gaps on the other hand undermines investigation by claiming that the answer is not knowable and cannot be discovered, and that therefore it must have happened supernaturally. You are therefore being incredibly deceptive in attempting to equate the two positions as essentially the same thing.

One last factor, as of this writing the only known, observable repeatable method of causing life is through procreation. It is an indisputable fact that life comes from life. This is important because my opponents claim they are lead to their conclusions on a factual basis.

It is indisputable that complex lifeforms replicate. The origin of lifeforms was not even remotely similar to the way that lifeforms exist now. They were much, much simpler, and to draw the line between "life" and "matter" doesn't make much sense at such a level. This is true whether you believe in a god or not- it is certain than there were only chemicals and then one day there were self-replicating chemicals. The mechanics of self-replication are quite complex, sure, but they are not mystical, and very intelligent people are currently spending a lot of their time and energy figuring out how exactly the transition occurred, what the climate was like, and factoring in all of the other circumstances that could help us to understand where the leap was made.

Again, you are either being deceptive or are misleading yourself. We have concrete evidence that life didn't always exist. Therefore, the "life always comes from life" argument is not sound. That isn't the basis upon which we should form our opinions on life. We can observe that there was no trace of life on earth before a certain point through various means and thus we can know that in some exceptional case, some primordial form of life must have come from something that we would not describe as being alive. The conclusion that life came from no-life is entirely factually based. There is no other possibility.

3. The fact sentient life exists.

If the world according to atheism is to be believed, mindless forces also caused something else completely unlike the source it is alleged to have come from; sentient intelligence to exist.

Absolutely no different to a hot star giving birth to a cold planet. A bunch of molecules reorganized themselves through inevitable physical processes to form something that looks and behaves differently to other collections of molecules. Placing any value on this observation is foolhardy.

Mindless forces that can't think, dream, feel, create, design or act autonomously created conscious self aware sentient beings that can dream, feel, create, design and act autonomously.

The nature of consciousness is quite beyond our intuitive capacity to comprehend, so it's not surprising that this argument comes up a lot. It's not an argument though- it's just God of the gaps. It's near-impossible to understand consciousness, therefore something intelligent must have done. There's no reason to make this claim, or any other claim.

Something vastly more complex and sophisticated was created by something vastly less complex and sophisticated minus any plan or intent to do so. In other words it just happened to have happened.

This isn't really a point at all. Every interaction of molecules on a large scale is complex. The complexity absolutely has not changed- molecules have merely rearranged by the same fundamental forces that dictate all relationships between matter. Beneath all of this apparent complexity is a beautiful simplicity which sweeps away the illusion that life has some special quality that is detached from the rest of physics.

As sentient humans we have progressed to the point where we can create on a computer virtual worlds. We can create AI avatars to interact in the worlds of our creation and as sentient beings we can create the laws of nature as we see fit in such virtual worlds. This is the closest model we have to creating a universe with unique laws of physics. In those worlds we are the transcendent gods who caused them to exist. We don't have to ask if the God model is possible, we simulate such ourselves.

It certainly is possible, but no more probable than any other speculation. Thus holding and guarding such a position is foolish.

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

My opponents often speak in glowing terms of how the laws of physics alone can account for all we observe. Why are there rocky planets that evolved from second generation stars? Because of the laws of physics and fusion that causes simple matter to turn into more complex matter. But it's not because something more complex came from something simpler, it's because something very complex, the laws of physics caused matter to act in such a fashion.

The laws of physics are not over-arching and complex. They are not a rulebook. They do not exist. The study of physics is best described as the observation of patterns in matter. Just patterns. We express them as best we can in human, mathematical terms, and indeed they look complex from our perspective. It's just quantifying the qualitative. The sun doesn't obey numbers and equations- our numbers and equations are just our best approximation of the movements of the sun. To say that the laws of physics are complicated doesn't really make sense. The behavior of the universe is neither complex nor simple- it simply is.

The fact the universe has laws of physics that cause matter to act in a predictable manner is what allows the scientific approach to work. The laws of physics could be looked at as a code or blueprint that compels matter to act in a certain manner.

I wouldn't use such terms. Matter isn't compelled- it has no choice and no reason to do any particular thing, other than that it just happens to be the way that it interacts with stuff. The idea of a "framework" is just a human attempt to explain it in familiar terms. There really is no intuitive way of grasping what "the laws of physics" actually represent.

It's a fair question to ask why are there any laws of nature at all, least of all ones that caused the existence of sentient humans and support their existence. The theist would argue there are laws of nature that allow and even caused the existence of planets, solar systems, stars, galaxies and ultimately life because they were designed to do so.

I dealt with this already. You're starting from humanity and defining the entire universe in terms of its suitability for yourself.

A. The universe for some unknown (but naturalistic reason) had to be as it is. Although my opponents raise this naturalism in the gaps explanation, I suspect it's the explanation they believe in the least. At best all it does is the push the envelope back one step and we'd still wonder why if a universe comes into existence minus any plan or design there is some unknown characteristic that causes the universe to be as it is. Secondly, if the universe for some reason had to be as it is, how could you tell the difference between that and a universe that was designed to be as it is?

We cannot possibly know at present whether the universe must necessarily have been as it is. I do not support this claim.

B. This is one of an infinitude of universes with varying characteristics and we find ourselves in the one with the right attributes for life. This is the ultimate time and chance naturalism in the gaps explanation. We don't know if there are other universes or how they came about or if they do have varying characteristics. My opponents who claim to be led by the facts to conclude there is no God, are in reality lead by dubious theories they don't even claim to believe in.

Again, I cannot support this claim. It is a positive claim which posits the existence of things we have no evidence for.

C. We got lucky. If it's true there is no planner designer who is responsible for the existence of the universe this is the most likely explanation regardless of how unlikely it is that by chance alone mindless forces blindly stumbled upon the formula to create planets, solar systems, stars and galaxies minus any intention of doing so.

"Lucky" assumes that a universe ought to be made with us in mind as its goal. You should have said "the universe just happened to be this way, and did not have to be, and is not one of many" as this is what you're really pointing to. This is also claiming too much- I do not know whether there is one universe or many. I also don't know whether or not it had to be this way.

D. My personal favorite. The universe popped into existence uncaused out of nothing. I like this one the best because my opponents often deride theism as invoking magic yet offer this counter explanation as if it isn't magical.

I'm not sure this is verbatim what atheists believe. Again, how can I have any possible insight into this? Intuition tells me that it ought to have a cause, but physics is defying intuition increasingly more often.

5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.

Irrelevant, as I have pointed out before. So we exist. So what? Things are the way that we observe them to be, and if they were different then we would not be observing them. This thought may be deeply moving, but on the topic of theism it's just a banal observation and means nothing.

In his book 'Just Six Numbers' the deep forces that shape the universe, highly respected astrophysicist (and atheist) Martin Rees explains each constant in depth and the consequences if any of these constants were slightly different. So mind numbingly narrow is the degree of precision needed that as a result he concludes this is one of an infinitude of universes all with different characteristics and as a result we live in the universe with the right 'numbers'. A simpler explanation that doesn't needlessly multiply entities (to infinity in this case) is that the constants were intentionally designed to fall within a range that allows planets, stars and galaxies to exist.

Only if you insist on defining the entire, mind-boggling large universe in such a way as to make yourself feel special.

If atheists were actually looking for evidence that supports the belief that a personal agent caused and designed the universe to support life this would be such evidence. It is an earmark of design when personal agents such as humans create contrivances such as a computer or a car or a nuclear plant, that in order for the contrivance to work properly, it must fall in a narrow range of characteristics for the contrivance to work as designed.

This is simply backwards and from my previous comments I'm sure you can see what I mean.

When we create a hypothesis that attempts to explain a phenomena that wasn't directly observed, we propose models and see which one lines up best with the available facts and data. The model that best explains the observed phenomena and concurs with the available facts is the preferred model. The theist claim is that the universe and the attendant laws of nature were not the result of some mindless process that fortuitously got it right but instead was the product of planning and design. Theism offers an explanation that accounts for our existence and the existence of the universe, why sentient life exists and why the conditions and characteristics necessary for such to obtain resulted.

Theism offers no such account. There is no account. None. We do not know why we are here, how it all got started, or whether it had to be this way. Everything that you have argued in this post has been in some way misinformed. Neither of us has the mildest capacity to answer the above questions, and all of the reasons you gave for you own position were based on a bias towards humans, while your criticisms of atheism were based on a misunderstanding of what atheists mean when the refer to a "lack of belief".

I trust that you will disagree with or misunderstand my arguments, but if you do insist on responding then please do not return with a further batch of skewed perspectives that give importance to things which are only possibly valuable or desirable from the puny perspective of a fallible human. Your thinking is too small, and the universe too grand, for such self-centeredness to be permissible.[/i]

[Drew_2013]

If you don't care what we think, then that raises two very important questions: One, why are any of us bothering to argue with you, an individual who is, by his own admission, closing his mind to any contrary evidence or argumentation his opponents might produce?

I'm not closing my mind to your counter arguments and have responded to many of them. But when you or others say my arguments have failed or have no merit...well of course your going to say that unless you change your mind and decide to become a theist.

And two, just where the fuck do you get off proceeding to then smugly declare that some of us have conceded defeat and bailed, when we all know that you're barely even reading what we write? You're declaring victory in a contest you've effectively said isn't happening.

I never said anyone conceded, I just noted some stopped responding.

you'll find next to nobody agreeing with you on any point. Rather, this thread is filled with people attempting to debate you. The jury has spoken, numbnuts.

Of course this is predominantly an atheist board.

---

Mystic,

Drew, people believe first, justify later.

True in many cases...sometimes they also doubt.

Before you reasoned in the way you reasoned, do you believe you were justified in faith in God if you had faith in God?

At one time I went along with the program even though I loathed going to church. Then at one point I doubted and rejected belief in God. Then I reasoned as I did but I still don't have any stomach for organized religion.

[Mystic]

At one time I went along with the program even though I loathed going to church. Then at one point I doubted and rejected belief in God. Then I reasoned as I did but I still don't have any stomach for organized religion.

Do you believe before you reasoned, that you were justified in belief in God?

I say this, because Christianity and Islam both are in the view, that you can know God directly (ie. without inference).

Do you believe you have to know God from inference (reasoning/argument etc) or can you know him directly (like knowing morality directly)?

[Drew_2013]

Rhythm,

I was planning to respond to what you wrote...but there is nothing of merit to respond to.

[Mystic]

Don't you think it's more unusual for an infinite god to exist for no reason than a finite universe to exist for no reason? Just pointing out the obvious.

God is defined to be the Necessary being. In farsi, the word for God (Khuda) in it's root doesn't mean "that which is worthy of worship" or "that which is worshipped" but rather has the meaning "The necessary being".

If it's a necessary being, and must exist, then that would be a reason for it to exist.

Of course, none of this proves a necessary being exists or that God if he exists is necessary or if a creator exist he is necessary.

But Theists define God to exist by necessity.

As it's necessary, they argue, it must posses all existence, perfection, and greatness. The reason being, if it lacked that, it would be a possible being (ie. there is infinite possibilities), but if it's ultimate, then it's the necessary being.