The Case for Theism

[DrewM]

josephpalazzo

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.

Unless there was a major breakthrough I'm unaware of it hasn't been demonstrably shown that life arose from inert matter. If some scientist did make that breakthrough he or she would be as well known as Einstein. To the best of my knowledge, theories abound but no recreation of the conditions that are alleged to have caused life have been duplicated.

Why are you so anxious to ban me? Is that how you ultimately silence critics? Are you afraid the free thinkers in here might be exposed to something you don't want them to hear?

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Hello josephpalazzo

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).

You're about to get smacked down by a physicist. Just a heads up. 

[DrewM]

You're about to get smacked down by a physicist. Just a heads up. 

It will be a foot race to see if I smacked down or banned first...

[The Skeletal Atheist]

josephpalazzo


Unless there was a major breakthrough I'm unaware of it hasn't been demonstrably shown that life arose from inert matter. If some scientist did make that breakthrough he or she would be as well known as Einstein. To the best of my knowledge, theories abound but no recreation of the conditions that are alleged to have caused life have been duplicated.

Why are you so anxious to ban me? Is that how you ultimately silence critics? Are you afraid the free thinkers in here might be exposed to something you don't want them to hear?

We have created the components of life using the same environment as the early Earth. We're not totally done putting the theory together yet, but at least we're working on something. We do not yet know the total picture how life came to be, but you don't know either. Life existing is no more evidence of your god than it is for the abiogenic origin of life. You fail on point #2. 

[aitm]

ah...those who hold great esteem and worship to a god that finds a woman's menstrual cycle something to be frightened off.....yes sir..mighty powerful god you got there... or is this a different god you hold to such lofty heights? Which one pray tell, has you all a quiver while the majority of the human race finds so laughable?

[stromboli]

josephpalazzo


Unless there was a major breakthrough I'm unaware of it hasn't been demonstrably shown that life arose from inert matter. If some scientist did make that breakthrough he or she would be as well known as Einstein. To the best of my knowledge, theories abound but no recreation of the conditions that are alleged to have caused life have been duplicated.

Why are you so anxious to ban me? Is that how you ultimately silence critics? Are you afraid the free thinkers in here might be exposed to something you don't want them to hear?

You are not a freethinker, you are a theist. A free thinker is someone open to a host of possibilities. By assuming belief in a deity you obviate every other possibility. You may be a deist, meaning you believe in a possible god but not a defined one.

Every theist argument starts from ths same place. "There is no proof god DOESN'T exist, therefore God! But it doesn't work that way. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If you go fishing with a boat and scuba gear to a pond you see off the highway, and cast yourt line in the water, and catch no fish, then use the boat and catch no fish or see evidence of it, and then use the scuba gear and see no evidence of fish, then you can logically assume there are no fish.

Theists claim  that god exists and has interacted with man. But how? Miracles? No proof. Faith healing? Demonstrably doesn't work. The only "evide3nce"are personal and experiential. Go back to your court analogy. This is like saying I believe he did it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but didn't actually see it."

The lack of evidence only proves there is no evidence, period. And without evidence you got zip.

[DrewM]

josephpalazzo,

We have created the components of life using the same environment as the early Earth. We're not totally done putting the theory together yet, but at least we're working on something. We do not yet know the total picture how life came to be, but you don't know either. Life existing is no more evidence of your god than it is for the abiogenic origin of life. You fail on point #2. 

I'll say this again not that it matters. The merit of the case I'm making doesn't rise or fall based on the opinion of those I am debating with. Would it mean anything to you if I said your counter point failed? It isn't the fact we don't know exactly how life came about and can't recreate it, its the fact it exists at all that raises the question if life was intended to exist.

I know most atheists want to frame the debate that the theist has to incontrovertibly prove beyond any doubt and to the exclusion of any other possibility that God exists and created the universe and if they fail to do so (according to the judgment of atheists) then atheism prevails. Doesn't that sound like your creating a mental construct that is evidence proof? Its not just a one way street. To be an intellectually satisfied atheist you would still have to believe that mindless lifeless forces without plan or intent or desire, minus a degree in engineering or biochemistry not only caused a universe to exist with all the laws of physics to cause stars and planets but also caused the myriad of right conditions for life to exist by pure happenstance. I know you folks will never say that's what you believe...but what's left if you rule out the possibility the universe and life were intentionally created... true?

[DrewM]

Stromboli,

Theists claim  that god exists and has interacted with man. But how? Miracles? No proof. Faith healing? Demonstrably doesn't work. The only "evide3nce"are personal and experiential. Go back to your court analogy. This is like saying I believe he did it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but didn't actually see it."

You're very talented at knocking down arguments you make on my behalf. When you're done playing with yourself maybe you'll reply to what I've written.

[Moralnihilist]

I will provide several lines of evidence (facts) that support my contention and are the reason I believe in theism as opposed to atheism (real atheism by the way the belief (opinion) God doesn’t exist not the disingenuous lack of belief in God some promote).

Provide it or fuck off

The answer God is to the most basic philosophical questions that have been asked through the ages. 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?

the only honest answer currently available is "I don't know." anything else is bullshit or opinion.

There are two primary reasons I am a theist. First because there are facts (evidence) that supports that belief,

Bullshit, or you would have fucking provided it.

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 sentient life to exist.I'd have to believe that life and mind without plan or intent emerged from something totally unlike itself, mindless lifeless forces.

As that is the only one that currently is backed by any sort of evidence(even if only scientifically theoretical)

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.

Wrong...

Most couldn't care less what you believe, most just don't want YOUR bullshit shoved down their throats.

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.

Ever hear of evolution?

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 only there was any. I agree that if indeed there is no evidence in favor of a claim that is a valid reason to reject 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 is 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.

Circumstantial evidence can be dismissed quite easily. It lacks repeatability. Without that all I am left with is you claiming to have seen something, and again I have no reason to believe anything that you claim(much less something as outlandish as a god)

From Wikipedia

yea.....


about wikipedia.....

not a good source.

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.

Good reasons to whom? To me? If so you are going to need more than your bullshit claims. I require REAL fucking evidence.

Before I present my first line of evidence let me state what is not evidence.

LOMOTHERFUCKINGL
You are going to tell me what counts as evidence when you are trying to convince me of your sky daddy?

Theories (whether scientific or not) are not facts and so are not evidence.

Scientific theories are based off of verifiable repeatable evidence. Evidence is something you are short on.

The only theory allowed in this discussion is the theory we’re attempting to offer evidence in favor of, in my case the theory of theism that a personal agent commonly referred to as God was responsible for the existence of the universe and sentient life.

Again retard you are attempting to convince US of your bullshit beliefs. YOU don't set the standards of evidence here idiot.

I won’t bother refuting theories offered in support of the theory God doesn’t exist.

And right there is where you lose your argument.

IF you can't be bothered to refuting counters to your "logic" then all you are here to do is preach at us.
And fucktard that is against the rules.

TLDR for you?
I'll shorten it for you.
Go fuck yourself with a barbwire wrapped hot sauce dipped cactus.

[Hakurei Reimu]

A universe where no God is apparent in its workings is consistent with the hypothesis that there is no God, and thus lends support to the hypothesis that there is no God and undermines the competing hypothesis that there is a God. Thus, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. We've looked for God, and we can't find him anywhere. He's not in any hole in our ignorance we have filled with science, forcing theists like you to make God smaller and smaller and vaguer and vaguer, just so you can find a hole in our ignorance small and dark enough for him to hide in. What a pitiful God you believe in is.

[Poison Tree]

No one would postulate God doesn't exist therefore I expect a universe with life to exist.

What?

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.

Even given two cracks at explaining it, I fail to see how the mere existence of things indicates an as of yet undefined god.

However, evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because you don't agree with the conclusion.

No evidence doesn't become evidence just because you say it is.

[Johan]

However a dead body is nevertheless the first line of evidence a murder has taken place.

No, its not. A dead body is evidence that there is a dead body. A dead body alone is proof of nothing further than that. Even a dead body with what appears to be a bullet wound is not proof of a murder. The bullet wound may not have been fatal. More evidence is required for the answer to what happened can be proven.

Now if you want to argue that you choose to believe there is a god simply because you've decided that god existing is the most plausible answer, bully for you. But if that's the case, then what do you hope to gain by coming here? You must already know that you won't convince anyone here that you're right. And as far as I can tell, you don't seem to have any desire to be convinced that your line of thinking is wrong. So why are  you here?

[Hakurei Reimu]

^ To prosthelytize. He's hoping that his words will stick with someone and drag them to the Theist Side of the Force.

[Johan]

^ To prosthelytize. He's hoping that his words will stick with someone and drag them to the Theist Side of the Force.

Wow. That's like trying to sell a can of Old Bay seasoning to a crab.

[stromboli]

holy crap. This is turning into the biggest load of wallpaper paste yet.