The Case for Theism

[the_antithesis]

Why do these pillocks always go for the first cause thing?

[stromboli]

Correct the existence of the universe alone doesn't necessitate the existence of God. Technically a dead body doesn't necessitate the occurrence of a murder (people die of natural causes).  However a dead body is nevertheless the first line of evidence a murder has taken place. If the universe didn't exist there would be nothing to attribute the existence of God to.

If/then post hoc fallacy. Try again.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

That is a bad analogy since a murder necessitates a dead body whereas a universe does not necessitate a god.

To expand even further: even if you have a dead body it doesn't mean that a murder occurred. You have to have evidence that a murder occurred, and many suicides may initially look like homicide. There have been cases where people have shot themselves in the head, failed, shot themselves again, failed again, and so on. The most I'm aware of is 5 times in the head with a .38 caliber revolver.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2589286

These suicides are usually first investigated as homicides because multiple gunshot suicides are rare. After further investigation it is revealed to be a suicide. What it reveals is that you can not judge a dead body, or the universe on appearances. The OP's analogy of a dead body with a knife in the back is interesting. Usually in such a case that would indicate a homicide, but one would also have to look for multiple deep stab wounds (common in homicides with a knife), defense wounds, hesitation marks (which would indicate suicide), signs of a struggle, ect. and then look at the circumstantial evidence to come to the conclusion of murder. A dead body isn't evidence in and of itself, it has to be proven that the person was murdered before their body can be evidence in a murder case. In the same way the universe existing isn't evidence of anything. You have to point to the signs/evidence that show it was likely created before making a case for the creator. That being said the OP did promise more "evidence", so I'll wait before passing judgement.

No because in the case of GM I am attributing the existence of cars to GM. In the case of God I am attributing the existence of the universe to God. If what you say is true, a prosecutor would attempt to try a murder case by proving there was a murder first without entering in evidence a dead body.

You know nothing of forensics, then. The dead body is extra. It's great to have, and it makes the case much, much easier to prosecute, but we don't need a dead body to prove a murder occurred.

The first thing the prosecution has to do is prove a murder occurred. Of course it's easier with the body, but the body isn't necessary.

[stromboli]

YO! Have fun ladies. I go to go lay some paver stones. 

[josephpalazzo]

What evidence? You haven't provided any.

-Nam

The evidence is: I think it's true, therefore it must be true... shades of Gasparov...

[DrewM]

Stromboli

And back to the other reply. The fact that anyone, theoretically or otherwise, can postulate a model wherein a god is not required, means that you in turn would have to, theoretically or otherwise, postulate a situation wherein only god and no other method or way could produce the universe. You can't do that. You can't do anything but, in your own words, offer an opinion. Opinion is not proof.

No it doesn't mean 'that I in turn would have to, theoretically or otherwise, postulate a situation wherein only god and no other method or way could produce the universe' any more than if I cited evidence that Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy I would have to postulate a situation where as only Harvey Oswald could have been responsible. In a criminal case I would have to prove my point beyond a reasonable doubt, not any doubt. In the theist/atheist debate a mere preponderance of evidence suffices.

[stromboli]

What we are talking about is the existence/non existence of a deity. A deity is by definition supernatural. Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Get it? Because there is no natural or scientific way we can quantify or define what a god is, it is outside our ability to do so. Therefore any belief, opinion, point of view or supposed "faith based evidence" is all merely supposition. If in fact we can quantify and describe god, then he is no longer god, by definition. Then he becomes something else, but not a god.

You can argue all damn day about beliefs, opinions, supposed proofs and so on, but it still comes back to an unquantifiable supposition. This is why we always win. In my 5 years on here, no theist has ever come close to proving that god exists.

God is an either/or proposition. Either it exists or it doesn't. Either it created the universe or it didn't. The impossible argument at which you have failed dramatically, the first cause argument, has to assume that no other way of creating the universe can exist. That is an ASSUMPTION. If you can make an assumption, so can I. And if my assumption is based on not one but a few potential models, I have just as much right to believe an assumption as you do.

[stromboli]

Stromboli

No it doesn't mean 'that I in turn would have to, theoretically or otherwise, postulate a situation wherein only god and no other method or way could produce the universe' any more than if I cited evidence that Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy I would have to postulate a situation where as only Harvey Oswald could have been responsible. In a criminal case I would have to prove my point beyond a reasonable doubt, not any doubt. In the theist/atheist debate a mere preponderance of evidence suffices.

You keep using these really stupid bad analogies. and as far as a criminal case, you do need evidence, real evidence. Even though cases have been won with hearsay evidence and supposed circumstantial evidence, you still have to be able to create a situation where the perpetrator committed the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" faith, belief, whatever is tantamount to witness only in the sense of belief and nothing else. People have been witnessing by faith for centuries. Proves nothing.

You are seriously out of your depth. go home.

[josephpalazzo]

The big problem with theists is that in their mind an opinion/faith is just as good as evidence. It's a position ready-made for the self-deluded. And since most of them are naive and gullible, they bite line, hook and sinker. Worse is when they have the arrogance to believe that their position is better than ours. 

[Solomon Zorn]

... I will provide several lines of evidence (facts) that support my contention and are the reason I believe in theism as opposed to atheism...

1.The fact the universe exists...

Additional lines of evidence soon to follow...

We're waiting...

[DrewM]

Hello Skeletal

You know nothing of forensics, then. The dead body is extra. It's great to have, and it makes the case much, much easier to prosecute, but we don't need a dead body to prove a murder occurred.

Correct some cases have been successfully prosecuted without a body but they still have to prove (by offering a lot of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt) that someone was killed. If the triers of fact aren't convinced, the case will be lost.

Stromboli,

beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Get it? Because there is no natural or scientific way we can quantify or define what a god is, it is outside our ability to do so. Therefore any belief, opinion, point of view or supposed "faith based evidence" is all merely supposition. If in fact we can quantify and describe god, then he is no longer god, by definition. Then he becomes something else, but not a god.

The fault lies with the definition of supernatural. Supernatural is defined as something that can't happen unless it turns out it does happen in which case its reclassified as 'natural' and therefore we can continue to claim the supernatural doesn't happen.

You can argue all damn day about beliefs, opinions, supposed proofs and so on, but it still comes back to an unquantifiable supposition. This is why we always win. In my 5 years on here, no theist has ever come close to proving that god exists.

I intend to make a solid reasonable rationale case for why I believe in theism. I'm not claiming I can make a case that will convince you or other atheists on this board theism is true anymore than if I was trying a case in court I could convince the opposing lawyer of the merit of my case. The merits of my case don't rise or fall on the basis of whether they persuade those I'm debating...

You keep using these really stupid bad analogies. and as far as a criminal case, you do need evidence, real evidence. Even though cases have been won with hearsay evidence and supposed circumstantial evidence, you still have to be able to create a situation where the perpetrator committed the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" faith, belief, whatever is tantamount to witness only in the sense of belief and nothing else. People have been witnessing by faith for centuries. Proves nothing.

This isn't a criminal case, at best its a civil case where a mere preponderance of evidence (more than against) is necessary.

[DrewM]

2. The fact life exists

Again this might seem like a trivial fact but I don't think anyone disputes life exists. If life didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to debate whether we owe our existence to a Creator, it’s the fact life exists that raises the question whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend to cause life or even cause the existence of a universe that allows life in the first place. There is no condition that needs to true for atheism to possibly be true. There are conditions that need to occur in order for us to consider the existence of a Creator. Two of those conditions are a suitable place for us to live and for life to exist. No one would postulate God doesn't exist therefore I expect a universe with life to exist. The existence of the universe and life are red flags that lead folks to question the narrative that we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend either the universe or life, yet in spite of neither the desire, the intent or the plan to create life, without knowledge of how to do it mindless forces stumbled blindly upon the formula to create life and cause a universe that allows life. Moreover if we are to believe the atheist narrative, lifeless mindless forces created something totally unlike itself...life. Yet the only way we have observed life coming about is through life. We have yet to observe life coming from non-life. The theory is that's how it came about but we haven't been able to figure out using intelligence how to cause life that mindless forces are alleged to have produced without trying or knowing how.

If the universe didn't exist and life didn't exist it’s still possible a Creator who hasn't created anything might exist, but there would be no evidence to suspect there was a Creator. Under such a circumstance the atheists claim there is no evidence of a Creator would be true. The claim there is no evidence of a Creator is false. Now, let's be clear, the two lines of evidence I presented so far obviously doesn't persuade any atheist that God exists. However, evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because you don't agree with the conclusion. Most atheists will always claim there is no evidence in support of theism because they like to marginalize theism as strictly a faith proposition. If they were to admit there is evidence in favor of theism then it’s no longer just a faith proposition that can be easily dismissed.

[josephpalazzo]

The fault lies with the definition of supernatural. Supernatural is defined as something that can't happen unless it turns out it does happen in which case its reclassified as 'natural' and therefore we can continue to claim the supernatural doesn't happen.

Wishful thinking. It's "natural" because it can be explained in terms of principles such as conservation of matter and energy, to name one, and these  are demonstrable, logical and consistent. "Supernatural" means there is no rational explanation as it is magical, outside of time and space, and poof, there goes a miracle, which is always implying that it can't be explained by any scientific, demonstrable and rational principle.

[josephpalazzo]

2. The fact life exists

I believe that you are a troll. We've already shown that 1) the universe exists is no evidence whatsoever. And now, your second argument is that there is life, which is demonstrably shown to have arisen from inert matter. You're a waste  and it's time for the banhammer to come down.

[DrewM]

Hello josephpalazzo

Wishful thinking. It's "natural" because it can be explained in terms of principles such as conservation of matter and energy, to name one, and these  are demonstrable, logical and consistent. "Supernatural" means there is no rational explanation as it is magical, outside of time and space, and poof, there goes a miracle, which is always implying that it can't be explained by any scientific, demonstrable and rational principle.

The proposed singularity in which the universe is alleged to have spawned from isn't subject to any laws of nature we are familiar with...is it supernatural then?

Moreover quantum mechanics appear to defy our notions of cause and effect also. Prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics such would have been described as supernatural. But since such phenomena has been observed to occur its considered natural (even if inexplicable).