What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?

[robvalue]

One last thought:

It makes sense that someone I trust could say, "It has to be carried out this way. I understand it seems weird and perhaps even unecessary cruel from your point of view, but if you understood it like I do, you'd understand there's a good reason."

Fair enough. However, we're expected to believe God is all powerful. Therefor, there isn't any reason why he has to include child rape in his plans, because he is not limited like humans would be. So to ask us to trust him makes no sense. It would make sense only if he actually wasn't all powerful.

[Cyberman]

Speculation is not the same as investigation. Please quit parroting Ken Ham.

Ok then how would you investigate the unobservable past?

By testing for, and examining, such evidence as would be expected from whatever phenomenon is under investigation. You are seriously misunderstanding what observation means in a scientific context. It doesn't mean you have to be able to see the cause with your own eyes or else it isn't true.

[abaris]

Fair enough. However, we're expected to believe God is all powerful. Therefor, there isn't any reason why he has to include child rape in his plans, because he is not limited like humans would be. So to ask us to trust him makes no sense. It would make sense only if he actually wasn't all powerful.

They wiggle their way around that usually, with answers such as god testing us, free will or similar talking points. I've long given up asking these questions. Long before I came here, since they aren't really important anyway. What is important is what we know about the universe, earth's history and life - and that not computing with a humanocentric benevolent god.

[Cyberman]

Sure, we can't observe the exact point in time that life came into existence. 

That doesn't mean that the science behind the theories can't be proven however. (Amino acid "building blocks of life" kinda stuff, y'know, basic science for 11 year olds?)

Yeah, but according to stimbo it isn't science unless you can do it in a lab. Also if you made a protein in a lab, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't necessarily provide evidence that it did. Similarly if I constructed a protein intentionally, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't provide evidence that intelligent design is true does it? So empirical science cannot be applied to historical events. However, keep in mind that I am not the one limiting science to empiricism, that would be stimbo. I think that they are both scientific hypothesis.

No, don't fucking strawman me. It's not because you assert it cannot be tested in a lab that makes it not scientific; it's that it is carefully crafted to be untestable altogether. Unfalsifiable = unscientific. Why is that so hard?

[Edwardo Piet]

The lamest defense for theism I ever heard was---OH HOLY FUCKING SHIT FORGET WHATEVER THE FUCK IT WAS THAT POWERCUT LAST NIGHT PISSED ME RIGHT!!!!!!!! FUCKING OFF. Ugh. It was like..... "FML!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[robvalue]

"You wouldn't believe the evidence anyway so I'm not going to show it to you."

[Reforged]

Earliest one I wasn't convinced by was "God works in mysterious ways".
I wasn't convinced by that when I was five. I mean, thats pretty impressive for an argument to be so bad it makes a child watching power rangers call bullshit.

[Edwardo Piet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXxzVuE_D1k

[AAA]

There are two big underlying problems with "intelligent design":

1) Science models reality. Intelligent design is not a model. No models are ever put forward to be tested, therefor it is not a scientific hypothesis and can never become a theory.

2) It operates under the false dichotomy that the only explanations are the theory of evolution and intelligent design.

Just to be clear: I'm not claiming there was no designer. I'm saying there's no evidence that there actually was. Problems with the theory of evolution are not evidence of design, neither are appeals to probability or complexity. You need to put forward your own model, or else you're not doing science.

If you are limiting science to something testable in the conventional sense then NO THEORY ABOUT THE PAST CAN BE CONSIDERED SCIENTIFIC. 

Also it is a model. Intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing a highly specific sequence. Therefore it explains the origin of genetic information better than materialistic explanations. When you are trying to compare competing hypothesis, you look to see if there are any known causes that can produce the affect in question. Intelligence can. Natural process (at least so far) cannot. Also, the predictions made by the materialist are constantly failing to live up to reality. The predictive power of intelligent design as for what we expect to see in cells far exceeds materialist explanations.

[AAA]

"You wouldn't believe the evidence anyway so I'm not going to show it to you."

That's funny, that's what I'm getting from the atheists on this page.