Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
There is a reason most sane lucid adults who don't believe in Fairies, Santa Claus, Invisible pink elephants do believe in a Creator of the universe and humans. It's not just because folks are brought up to believe in the existence of God, there are plenty of beliefs folks are taught as children that they later reject. It's because in part it's the best explanation for why we find ourselves alive and in a universe that allows our existence.
Theism to me is a belief and an opinion, I don't claim it's a fact. It's an opinion regarding the most basic philosophical questions people have asked. Why is there a universe? Why is there something rather than nothing? How did our existence come about? And perhaps the most puzzling question, is our existence the result of planning and design or was it the result of happenstance? This is in essence the question of theism as opposed to atheism. I know atheists are very sensitive about how atheism is defined. Most define it as nothing more than a 'lack of belief in the existence of God' they prefer this definition because then they can insist that only the theist has a burden of evidence. The dictionary definition of atheism is not or without God(s). Just as asexual means reproduction without sex atheism means without God. What without God? The universe and humans of course. Regardless of which definition atheists prefer you can ask anyone who calls them self an atheist do you believe we owe the existence of the universe and human life to a personal transcendent Creator of great power and invariably they answer no. They don't merely lack belief that a transcendent Creator of great power caused the universe and humans to exist, they don't believe such was the case.
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.
One of the chief objections to theism cited by atheists is they claim there is no evidence in favor of theism. I am often re-assured that they are very open minded and would be happy to evaluate any such evidence if there was any. I agree that if indeed there is no evidence in favor of a claim that is a valid reason to decline belief in such a claim (although it by no means disproves such a claim). There is often confusion about what evidence is and what proof is. Evidence are facts or objects that support a conclusion. For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is evidence that supports the conclusion the deceased was murdered. Typically the knife and pictures of the knife in the back of the deceased would be entered into evidence. A lot of evidence is circumstantial evidence.
From Wikipedia
Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.
On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).
From free dictionary.com
One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence.
I will present several lines of evidence that support the belief in theism. They don't prove theism is true, they merely provide good reason to think it's true. I'm not going to be making any 'God of the gaps' arguments nor am I going to offer any hypothetical scenarios or cite the mere possibility of something being true as evidence theism is true.
The first line of evidence is.
1. The fact the universe exists
That might seem like a paltry fact in support of theism. Suppose I was trying a case for murder, the first line of evidence I would produce is a dead body. After all, I couldn't accuse anyone of murder if there was no one deceased. If the universe didn't exist there would be no reason to invoke the existence of God. Moreover if a universe didn't exist there would in fact be as atheists claim no evidence God exists. In order for anyone to even think God exists a place for humans to exist must exist. There are certain facts that must be true for anyone to think God exists. For humans to have any reason to think God might exist, we must have a place that allows us to live. There are in fact several facts and conditions that must be true in order for there to be any reason to think the existence of a Creator is true. None of those facts needs to be true for atheism to be true. Atheism doesn't require the existence of a universe to believe atheism is true. If the universe didn't exist atheism might still be false (God might exist but not have created the universe) but there would be no evidentiary reason to raise the existence of God. Additional lines of evidence soon to follow...
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.
" it's the best explanation for why we find ourselves alive and in a universe that allows our existence.".
That's the wrong way round. If the universe wasn't fit for life, life wouldn't exist. Indeed there may be many other universes where life can't exist.
The multiple universe hypothesis is on the same level as the god hypothesis as no-one can see "before" the singularity, if that word even makes sense in that context.
The multiple universe hypothesis however, does have maths to show it's possible.
March 5, 2013 at 7:42 pm (This post was last modified: March 5, 2013 at 9:00 pm by Whateverist.)
(March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: Regardless of which definition atheists prefer you can ask anyone who calls them self an atheist do you believe we owe the existence of the universe and human life to a personal transcendent Creator of great power and invariably they answer no. They don't merely lack belief that a transcendent Creator of great power caused the universe and humans to exist, they don't believe such was the case.
When I answer "no" I very reasonably mean "no, I have no reason to believe that", not "I believe the opposite to be true". My answer would be exactly the same if you substituted the pink elephant, unicorn and other nonsense you mentioned earlier and I would mean exactly the same thing "no, I have no reason to believe that". There is no way and no reason for me to manufacture believe (including disbelief) in things I have no experience of. There is no inconsistency in the agnostic atheist's position. The agnosticism is primary. The atheism is only elaboration.
That does not mean I have some consistent standard for what I will and won't believe. I believe many unsupportable propositions about other people's mental states for one thing. I admit to having faith in things without evidence, gods for me just isn't one of them.
I have no problem with others having faith in gods for reasons they can't justify to me. I understand that. It is only when someone tries to insist that others believe without justification that which they accept for personal reasons that I object.
So are you an agnostic theist as was suggested or do you think that is just as untenable as you seem to think true of agnostic atheism?
Another question I have is whether your argument is intended to show that belief in any system of religion whatsoever is justified or only belief in one of them?
(March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: There is a reason most sane lucid adults who don't believe in Fairies, Santa Claus, Invisible pink elephants do believe in a Creator of the universe and humans. It's not just because folks are brought up to believe in the existence of God, there are plenty of beliefs folks are taught as children that they later reject. It's because in part it's the best explanation for why we find ourselves alive and in a universe that allows our existence.
Theism to me is a belief and an opinion, I don't claim it's a fact. It's an opinion regarding the most basic philosophical questions people have asked. Why is there a universe? Why is there something rather than nothing? How did our existence come about? And perhaps the most puzzling question, is our existence the result of planning and design or was it the result of happenstance? This is in essence the question of theism as opposed to atheism. I know atheists are very sensitive about how atheism is defined. Most define it as nothing more than a 'lack of belief in the existence of God' they prefer this definition because then they can insist that only the theist has a burden of evidence. The dictionary definition of atheism is not or without God(s). Just as asexual means reproduction without sex atheism means without God. What without God? The universe and humans of course. Regardless of which definition atheists prefer you can ask anyone who calls them self an atheist do you believe we owe the existence of the universe and human life to a personal transcendent Creator of great power and invariably they answer no. They don't merely lack belief that a transcendent Creator of great power caused the universe and humans to exist, they don't believe such was the case.
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.
One of the chief objections to theism cited by atheists is they claim there is no evidence in favor of theism. I am often re-assured that they are very open minded and would be happy to evaluate any such evidence if there was any. I agree that if indeed there is no evidence in favor of a claim that is a valid reason to decline belief in such a claim (although it by no means disproves such a claim). There is often confusion about what evidence is and what proof is. Evidence are facts or objects that support a conclusion. For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is evidence that supports the conclusion the deceased was murdered. Typically the knife and pictures of the knife in the back of the deceased would be entered into evidence. A lot of evidence is circumstantial evidence.
From Wikipedia
Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.
On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).
From free dictionary.com
One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence.
I will present several lines of evidence that support the belief in theism. They don't prove theism is true, they merely provide good reason to think it's true. I'm not going to be making any 'God of the gaps' arguments nor am I going to offer any hypothetical scenarios or cite the mere possibility of something being true as evidence theism is true.
The first line of evidence is.
1. The fact the universe exists
That might seem like a paltry fact in support of theism. Suppose I was trying a case for murder, the first line of evidence I would produce is a dead body. After all, I couldn't accuse anyone of murder if there was no one deceased. If the universe didn't exist there would be no reason to invoke the existence of God. Moreover if a universe didn't exist there would in fact be as atheists claim no evidence God exists. In order for anyone to even think God exists a place for humans to exist must exist. There are certain facts that must be true for anyone to think God exists. For humans to have any reason to think God might exist, we must have a place that allows us to live. There are in fact several facts and conditions that must be true in order for there to be any reason to think the existence of a Creator is true. None of those facts needs to be true for atheism to be true. Atheism doesn't require the existence of a universe to believe atheism is true. If the universe didn't exist atheism might still be false (God might exist but not have created the universe) but there would be no evidentiary reason to raise the existence of God. Additional lines of evidence soon to follow...
*The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
* Douglas Adams - The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy.
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Quote: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.
I am a philosophical theist not a religious one which is why I didn't want this post under religion. But I was overruled by management...
I agree that God doesn't make himself indisputably known in some fashion.
This one would be a perfect example of Christian Apologist. He seems to hit all the marks.
1. Pretends to be a philosophical theist while actually knowing so little about philosophy.
2. Presupposes existence of god and argues in circles hoping no one would notice it.
3. Repeats the same arguments and mistakes over and over again despite the fact that they've already been shredded to bits.
4. Runs away from threads where he's been beaten (while pretending to have won) and starts a new thread with same old arguments.
Here are some:
(March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: It's because in part it's the best explanation for why we find ourselves alive and in a universe that allows our existence.
No, it isn't. As a matter of fact, that inclusion is no only a non-explanation, it prevents you from looking for the correct one.
(March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: It's an opinion regarding the most basic philosophical questions people have asked.
No, they aren't. As you have been corrected on this point before, you should know better.
(March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: First because there are facts (evidence) that supports that belief.
And many more that contradict it.
(March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: 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.
As indicated many, many times before - false dichotomy. There are many other options available.
(March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: 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.
And here it is - setting up stupid strawmen against atheists.
(March 5, 2013 at 6:57 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: 1. The fact the universe exists
That might seem like a paltry fact in support of theism. Suppose I was trying a case for murder, the first line of evidence I would produce is a dead body. After all, I couldn't accuse anyone of murder if there was no one deceased. If the universe didn't exist there would be no reason to invoke the existence of God. Moreover if a universe didn't exist there would in fact be as atheists claim no evidence God exists. In order for anyone to even think God exists a place for humans to exist must exist. There are certain facts that must be true for anyone to think God exists. For humans to have any reason to think God might exist, we must have a place that allows us to live. There are in fact several facts and conditions that must be true in order for there to be any reason to think the existence of a Creator is true. None of those facts needs to be true for atheism to be true. Atheism doesn't require the existence of a universe to believe atheism is true. If the universe didn't exist atheism might still be false (God might exist but not have created the universe) but there would be no evidentiary reason to raise the existence of God.
Really? You are starting with this pathetic argument?
Well, since you invoked a murder analogy, I'll respond in kind.
A dead body, by itself, is not sufficient evidentiary cause to raise the existence of a murderer. You first have to establish cause of death. If the death could not have been caused by natural mechanisms and indicative of intention behind it, then you have cause to suspect murderer. If it was not caused naturally, but there was no indication of intention, then it is happenstance or accident. Then there is the third option - where it is the consequence of natural mechanisms. In fact, that third option is what a coroner starts with unless he can see evidence to the contrary.
Similarly, the default position for us with regards to the universe would be that it is the consequence of natural mechanisms unless there is indication of the supernatural. And in that case our options might be if it happened by plan or by happenstance.
But, this analogy is not perfect. After all, humanity has seen many dead bodies in past and they typically have things in common. Such as the person was born and alive before his death and that something happens that causes the live body to become dead body. We start with the assumption that it is a dead body and not simply a non-functioning human body because we've never seen otherwise. Ofcourse, once I finish my human cloning technology to create multiple non-functioning clones, this would go out the window - but the assumption is valid for now.
The same is not true for the universe. We've neither seen nor known any other universes to compare it to. So we cannot even say that it had a cause or that it didn't always exist. If never-alive bodies were available in this world, then your so called "dead" body wouldn't even be evidentiary cause to indicate death - let alone murder and let alone a murderer.
There is a reason most sane lucid adults who don't believe in Fairies, Santa Claus, Invisible pink elephants do believe in a Creator of the universe and humans. It's not just because folks are brought up to believe in the existence of God, there are plenty of beliefs folks are taught as children that they later reject. It's because in part it's the best explanation for why we find ourselves alive and in a universe that allows our existence.
Quote:That's the wrong way round. If the universe wasn't fit for life, life wouldn't exist. Indeed there may be many other universes where life can't exist.
Lets attempt to limit this discussion to known facts. If the day comes the existence of other universes is a fact then we can consider it. Since life does exist as does the universe thats what the debate is about.
Quote:The multiple universe hypothesis is on the same level as the god hypothesis as no-one can see "before" the singularity, if that word even makes sense in that context.
It doesn't but we have to use words that make sense to us.
Whateverist,
Quote:When I answer "no" I very reasonably mean "no, I have no reason to believe that", not "I believe the opposite to be true". My answer would be exactly the same if you substituted the pink elephant, unicorn and other nonsense you mentioned earlier and I would mean exactly the same thing "no, I have no reason to believe that". There is no way and no reason for me to manufacture believe (including disbelief) in things I have no experience of. There is no inconsistency in the agnostic atheist's position. The agnosticism is primary. The atheism is only elaboration.
Do you just 'lack belief' in the existence of Santa Claus or toothfaires? Or are you fairly certain they don't exist since you put them in the same category as God?
Quote:I have no problem with others having faith in gods for reasons they can't justify to me. I understand that. It is only when someone tries to insist that others believe without justification that which they accept for personal reasons that I object.
I don't have faith in God, I believe God exists due to evidence in favor of that belief as well as lack of evidence of some other mechanism that can account for our existence.
Quote:So are you an agnostic theist as was suggested or do you think that is just as untenable as you seem to think true of agnostic atheism?
My understanding is an agnostic claims there isn't enough evidence pro or con to beileve God exists. I actually loathe that position. Its like people who check undecided on a survey. Why bother? Its my opinion we owe our existence to a Creator but I could be wrong.
Quote:Another question I have is whether your argument is intended to show that belief in any system of religion whatsoever is justified or only belief in one of them?
Thats up to the individual. However, if we do owe our existence to God, then any belief that believe in God is at least partially right.
Baalzebutt
Quote:I was just wondering because I have a feeling you are about to get your ass handed to you.
![[Image: dcep7c.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i46.tinypic.com%2Fdcep7c.jpg)
