Are there any Level 1's here?

[Ksa]

I once met a truck driver who said that all that matters in life is what goes in your mouth and what slides down your dick and he also firmly believed in the existence of God.

[Avodaiah]

Has anyone else noticed that rather than explanations, the level 1 theists are offering only poetry & rhetoric?

When I've needed to explain why I don't believe, I've been able to state the specific items which lead me to my conclusions (e.g. lack of physical evidence, logical fallacies, historic inconsistencies). Further, when challenged to describe situations where I'm anti-theistic (make the positive claim of non-existence, i.e. level 7), I'm able to provide similar specifics which allow me to describe my positions and compare/contrast with the evidence which only leads me to disbelief.

What I'm hoping to see from the theists are similarly specific lists so that we can have some meaningful discussions. Any of you up to that challenge?

Sure.
1) The universe is governed.
Nothing in the universe can take up the same space as anything else. Therefore it can be said that the state of every object in the universe depends on the state of every other object in it.
Now take any 2 objects in the universe. If they both depend on each other, who/what is in charge of them? It can't be either of the objects, because then one could control the other, but not the other way around. And it can't be nothing, because then they would both be independent and neither would control the other. It has to be a third being/thing. Now extend this principle to the whole universe, and there must be a someone/something controlling everything in then universe.
2) The governor is the same as the creator.
Nothing that depends on its governor can exist before or without it. Otherwise, it would not be dependent on it. Moreover, things in this universe cannot have existed forever, since cause-and-effect can only propagate forward, not infinitely backward. Therefore we had to come into existence under our governor's control, i.e. we were created by it. Finally, if the object was created by something, its creator would have made it a certain way, and therefore would be in charge of its state, making it the governor as well.
3) The mind is not a physical thing.
There is a difference between how a human thinks and how any purely physical device solves problems. A physical device, e.g. a computer, uses physical means, e.g. transistors, to store and compute information. But the motion of transistors is not knowledge. It cannot be called knowledge any more than flicking a light switch on and off can be called knowledge. With humans, it is different - we actually know and understand things. We are sentient.
4) The governor/creator must be sentient.
This is probably the simplest of my four points: Humans are among those things in the universe that depend on each other and therefore share a governor/creator. Nothing can control a power it does not have. Therefore, if this governor/creator is in charge of sentient beings, he himself must be sentient.

So now we have a sentient being who not only created everything in the universe, but also controls it. This is a god.

[Angrboda]

What we have is a pigeon about to be fleeced.

[Rahul]

I know for a fact that the Easter Bunny is real and I live my life according to that great truth.

[Esquilax]

Sure.
1) The universe is governed.

... By perfectly natural, physical laws determined by the nature of particulate matter. No creative mind has been demonstrated to have a part in it.

Nothing in the universe can take up the same space as anything else. Therefore it can be said that the state of every object in the universe depends on the state of every other object in it.

Oh, I see a spurious connection based upon linguistic tricks and not science coming up!

Now take any 2 objects in the universe. If they both depend on each other, who/what is in charge of them? It can't be either of the objects, because then one could control the other, but not the other way around. And it can't be nothing, because then they would both be independent and neither would control the other. It has to be a third being/thing. Now extend this principle to the whole universe, and there must be a someone/something controlling everything in then universe.

Ha ha, nailed it! So, just to be clear: you've defined a relationship into existence, this "dependency," using nothing more than a bit of word-trickery and your own fiat declaration, and now you're trying to twist it so that it seems scientific. It's the same thing people do with Kalam, where only things that begin to exist need a cause... sorry, it's not going to work.

2) The governor is the same as the creator.
Nothing that depends on its governor can exist before or without it. Otherwise, it would not be dependent on it. Moreover, things in this universe cannot have existed forever, since cause-and-effect can only propagate forward, not infinitely backward. Therefore we had to come into existence under our governor's control, i.e. we were created by it. Finally, if the object was created by something, its creator would have made it a certain way, and therefore would be in charge of its state, making it the governor as well.

A bunch of assertions that haven't been justified at all. Can you demonstrate any of this paragraph?

3) The mind is not a physical thing.
There is a difference between how a human thinks and how any purely physical device solves problems. A physical device, e.g. a computer, uses physical means, e.g. transistors, to store and compute information. But the motion of transistors is not knowledge. It cannot be called knowledge any more than flicking a light switch on and off can be called knowledge. With humans, it is different - we actually know and understand things. We are sentient.

Sorry, but "people and computers are different," is not adequate justification for the claim that the mind is non-physical, because it doesn't address the claim at all. It's a non-sequitur: we already know computers are different from people. Care to consider the possibility that some of those myriad differences between people and computers, physically speaking, may be the reason why our consciousness exists?

4) The governor/creator must be sentient.
This is probably the simplest of my four points: Humans are among those things in the universe that depend on each other and therefore share a governor/creator. Nothing can control a power it does not have. Therefore, if this governor/creator is in charge of sentient beings, he himself must be sentient.

Yet more assertions. Demonstrate them, or they will be discarded.

So now we have a sentient being who not only created everything in the universe, but also controls it. This is a god.

So, remember when you were asked specifically not to use poetry or rhetoric in your list? This is all rhetoric.

[Darkstar]

1) The universe is governed.
Nothing in the universe can take up the same space as anything else. Therefore it can be said that the state of every object in the universe depends on the state of every other object in it.
Now take any 2 objects in the universe. If they both depend on each other, who/what is in charge of them? It can't be either of the objects, because then one could control the other, but not the other way around. And it can't be nothing, because then they would both be independent and neither would control the other. It has to be a third being/thing. Now extend this principle to the whole universe, and there must be a someone/something controlling everything in then universe.

*Cough*Laws of physics*Cough*

2) The governor is the same as the creator.
Nothing that depends on its governor can exist before or without it. Otherwise, it would not be dependent on it. Moreover, things in this universe cannot have existed forever, since cause-and-effect can only propagate forward, not infinitely backward. Therefore we had to come into existence under our governor's control, i.e. we were created by it. Finally, if the object was created by something, its creator would have made it a certain way, and therefore would be in charge of its state, making it the governor as well.

The more I thought about this one, the more I came to think that it might actually be correct. How the matter in the universe came to be is a topic that invites almost pure speculation at this point, but allowing that the laws of physics are eternal seems logical (though we technically don't even know this much).

However, if this premise is true, it does not support your hypothesis that god is the creator. If an action is a cause, and cause-effect cannot infinitely regress, then god cannot exist. Physics would have had nothing to act on if there was nothing in the universe, so they would be essentially inert forces and would not have any effect. However, a god, an entity, could conceivably commit certain actions even in the absence of matter and energy, creating the possibility of infinite regress. Physics, in this case, wouldn't need special pleading to be eternal because it wouldn't create an infinite regress as it would not be capable of having an effect without something to act on. A god could take an action however, making the existence of one inherently implausible from this perspective.

3) The mind is not a physical thing.

And neither is this webpage. But this webpage is clearly not magic. Next.

There is a difference between how a human thinks and how any purely physical device solves problems. A physical device, e.g. a computer, uses physical means, e.g. transistors, to store and compute information.

You have already presupposed a soul or something similar by suggesting there is a non-physical component to the mind.

But the motion of transistors is not knowledge. It cannot be called knowledge any more than flicking a light switch on and off can be called knowledge. The 'knowledge' on a computer seems to be knowledge much less so than information in the brain because a computer lacks a sentience to process said information.

It could be called knowledge more, but how much more I'm not sure. A light switch is far less complex than the information stored on a computer.

With humans, it is different - we actually know and understand things. We are sentient.

In other words you are suggesting that a sentient robot is physically impossible. And you know this...how? The brain is governed by electrical impulses; why couldn't a robot be built off of the same principles some day? (I'm not saying whether or not it should, just that it could).

4) The governor/creator must be sentient.
This is probably the simplest of my four points: Humans are among those things in the universe that depend on each other and therefore share a governor/creator. Nothing can control a power it does not have. Therefore, if this governor/creator is in charge of sentient beings, he himself must be sentient.

What do you mean by "in charge of"? That fact that the laws of physics apply to sentient beings does not make physics itself sentient in nature.

So now we have a sentient being who not only created everything in the universe, but also controls it. This is a god.

No we don't. Not by a long shot.

[Sinnersburninhell100]

I know with 100% absolutely that The Lord exist. If you seek Him with a honest desire to know Him He will reveal Himself to you. You will have TRUTH and peace in your heart.

---

The universe is creation which needs a creator. Nature cannot cause nsture. That idea is not logical on the atheist part.

[Darkstar]

I know with 100% absolutely that The Lord exist. If you seek Him with a honest desire to know Him He will reveal Himself to you. You will have TRUTH and peace in your heart.

Oh, he got us guys. We should all go home now.

The universe is creation which needs a creator.

If the universe were creation it would, by definition, need a creator. But the idea that the universe is creation is merely an assertion.

Nature cannot cause nsture.

How do you know this? I suppose I should first ask what you mean by nature [not] causing nature. Are you saying that because physical entities have never demonstrated the ability to create matter from nothing, god must exist?

[Esquilax]

I know with 100% absolutely that The Lord exist. If you seek Him with a honest desire to know Him He will reveal Himself to you. You will have TRUTH and peace in your heart.

If you can't show it, you don't know it. You merely believe.

The universe is creation which needs a creator.

Fiat assertions are not evidence. How do you justify claiming we occupy a creation at all?

Nature cannot cause nsture. That idea is not logical on the atheist part.

Then I'm forced to ask, what caused your god? And if you say nothing, or that he was eternal, or any variation on that, then what justification do you have for excluding nature from that same process?

[Sinnersburninhell100]

I know with 100% absolutely that The Lord exist. If you seek Him with a honest desire to know Him He will reveal Himself to you. You will have TRUTH and peace in your heart.

If you can't show it, you don't know it. You merely believe.

The universe is creation which needs a creator.

Fiat assertions are not evidence. How do you justify claiming we occupy a creation at all?

Nature cannot cause nsture. That idea is not logical on the atheist part.

Then I'm forced to ask, what caused your god? And if you say nothing, or that he was eternal, or any variation on that, then what justification do you have for excluding nature from that same process?

The supernatural is beyond the limits of the logic that governs natural. God is omnipotent so we cannot box or define him outside revelation and what is written in scripture. The universe has laws that govern it and require a law giver or governor. Also the saying someone must show something to know it is arrogant asserton and absolutist.