The Case for Theism

[The Skeletal Atheist]

josephpalazzo,

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?

Ok, let me put this in simpler terms that even a retard can understand:

The universe existing isn't proof of God/gods.
Life existing isn't proof of God/gods.

Origin theories, based off of actual evidence, being too complicated for you are not evidence that goddidit.

So far your "evidence" has been "The universe and life exist...therefore God".

That is not evidence, that is being fucking stupid.

I'm not asking for "incontrovertible proof", I'm asking for admissible evidence. What you're giving me are baseless assumptions.

Edit: Also I'm not Joe.

[Johan]

Listening to the endless dribble of atheists convincing each other their right gets old too I would think.

1. Its they're not their.
2. Atheists do not need to convince other atheists of anything.
3. Go fuck yourself.

[DrewM]

So far, both your arguments boil down to an appeal to ignorance: you observe there is a universe, but you don't know how such a thing can come about without intelligent intervention, therefore something like a God (never mind you never explain how such a thing like the universe could come about even with intelligent intervention); you observe there is life, but you don't know how life could come about through non-life without intelligent intervention, therefore something like a God (again, never mind you never explain how life could come about even with intelligent intervention). These are not productive avenues of discussion

.

I could reject the belief a Creator caused and designed a universe for the purpose of creating life and subscribe to the belief that mindless-lifeless forces without plan or intent or a degree in biology or physics blindly stumbled upon the formula to create the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets and finally something utterly unlike itself...life. Thus subscribe to the notion we owe our existence to the most fortuitous act of serendipity imaginable. Of course I'd would have to accept this counter notion on faith...I don't see any atheists on this board stumbling over themselves to provide evidence such could or did happen.

[PickelledEggs]

.

I could reject the belief a Creator caused and designed a universe for the purpose of creating life and subscribe to the belief that mindless-lifeless forces without plan or intent or a degree in biology or physics blindly stumbled upon the formula to create the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets and finally something utterly unlike itself...life. Thus subscribe to the notion we owe our existence to the most fortuitous act of serendipity imaginable. Of course I'd would have to accept this counter notion on faith...I don't see any atheists on this board stumbling over themselves to provide evidence such could or did happen.

At the core of your question... Are you asking us to disprove god?

[DrewM]

Ok, let me put this in simpler terms that even a retard can understand:

Good idea, play to your audience.

The universe existing isn't proof of God/gods.
Life existing isn't proof of God/gods.

I didn't say it was proof I said it was evidence. Facts that comport with a belief are evidence in favor of a belief. The fact the universe exists comports with the belief God created the universe. Whether you agree or disagree is noted but not relevant.

Origin theories, based off of actual evidence, being too complicated for you are not evidence that goddidit.

As opposed to naturedidit?

I'm not asking for "incontrovertible proof", I'm asking for admissible evidence. What you're giving me are baseless assumptions.

That's your opinion. How do you think we'd fare if we debated before an impartial group of people? First I'd have to establish if your an atheist who merely lacks belief in God (but doesn't deny God exists) or a real atheist. If you merely lack belief in God we can't debate the existence of God because even though you claim to be an atheist...you don't deny God exists.

[stromboli]

.

I could reject the belief a Creator caused and designed a universe for the purpose of creating life and subscribe to the belief that mindless-lifeless forces without plan or intent or a degree in biology or physics blindly stumbled upon the formula to create the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets and finally something utterly unlike itself...life. Thus subscribe to the notion we owe our existence to the most fortuitous act of serendipity imaginable. Of course I'd would have to accept this counter notion on faith...I don't see any atheists on this board stumbling over themselves to provide evidence such could or did happen.

We don't have to accept anything on faith. Consider the fact that 99% of climate related science confirms global warming but the dissenters are largely the religious conservatives. In order to do that they have to deny an ever mounting and already mountainous pile of evidence.

Like denying evolution. There is a massive amount of evidentiary support, but there is still a persistent effort by theists to discredit it, based on little more than biblical belief. There are literally billions of examples of both prehistoric animals and man to the transitory nature of evolution. Cretaionists have little or nothing to back anything they claim.

the origin of the universe and life is based on the scientific method, observation, experimentation and conclusions drawn from that. Theism is the opposite of science; it presuppposes the existence of a god and a creator without evidence and makes claims from that basis.

the Big Bang, evolution, the formation of the galaxies et al is based on observation and testing and conclusions drawn from that. Theism is static and rigid and unprovable. Science is dynamic and intellectually driven and adaptive.

You are static and immobile in your ideas, not a free thinker. We are dynamic and intellectually driven and adaptive.

[stromboli]

Btw way, one more time: The existence of the universe is not proof of god

the existence of life is not proof of god. The fact that you keep going back to these idiotic and unproven notions shows how weak your argument is.

[DrewM]

I could reject the belief a Creator caused and designed a universe for the purpose of creating life and subscribe to the belief that mindless-lifeless forces without plan or intent or a degree in biology or physics blindly stumbled upon the formula to create the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets and finally something utterly unlike itself...life. Thus subscribe to the notion we owe our existence to the most fortuitous act of serendipity imaginable. Of course I'd would have to accept this counter notion on faith...I don't see any atheists on this board stumbling over themselves to provide evidence such could or did happen.

At the core of your question... Are you asking us to disprove god?

At the core of the debate is two competing hypothesis

1. That the universe and life was intentionally caused, engineered and designed by a Creator
2. That mindless forces without plan or intent fortuitously caused the universe and life to exist.

The irony is that many atheists find it difficult to believe an intelligent transcendent personal agent could cause and design a universe to exist for the purpose of life but that mindless forces without having any intelligence, plan or intent could do so.

You don't have to disprove God, just provide compelling reasons and evidence that would lead me to one conclusion over another.

[aitm]

The far simpler question is why.


Why would an almighty god design a billion light year universe of which we are mere nothings on a mote of nothing and then demand we splay ourselves in the dirt to almighty ...blah blah   blah....really? This is your god? I CREATED YOU!!!! WORSHIP ME OR DIE YOU FUCKING PIECES OF SHIT!!!!



REALLY?

This is the god you consider worthy of your worship?

Whatever "proof" you can provide as to your god...you reasoning sucks....fuck that god! Join humanity and ban gods! Join humanity and join humanity.

[Poison Tree]

[Hakurei Reimu]

I could reject the belief a Creator caused and designed a universe for the purpose of creating life and subscribe to the belief that mindless-lifeless forces without plan or intent or a degree in biology or physics blindly stumbled upon the formula to create the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets and finally something utterly unlike itself...life.

Why are stars, galaxies, blah blah blah so utterly unlike life? At what point does life start becoming unlike every other form of matter?

Thus subscribe to the notion we owe our existence to the most fortuitous act of serendipity imaginable. Of course I'd would have to accept this counter notion on faith...I don't see any atheists on this board stumbling over themselves to provide evidence such could or did happen.

The evidence that would clinch the case wouldn't fit on this entire forum, let alone in a single post. Forgive us if we seem a bit reluctant to post it.

There is an entire web out there to find out this stuff. Why don't you do some damn legwork and bring yourself up to speed with what we do know about the origin of life before you start blabbing about what we don't know about it?

At the core of the debate is two competing hypothesis

1. That the universe and life was intentionally caused, engineered and designed by a Creator
2. That mindless forces without plan or intent fortuitously caused the universe and life to exist.

The irony is that many atheists find it difficult to believe an intelligent transcendent personal agent could cause and design a universe to exist for the purpose of life but that mindless forces without having any intelligence, plan or intent could do so.

Because an "intelligent transcendent personal agent" would have to be an amazingly complex thing in and of itself, and is even more unlikely to occur on its own than even a universe with complex life in it, emerging spontaneously and fully formed, is easier to believe, let alone that complexity emerging from those mindless forces.

That agent solves nothing. It simply shoves back and complicates the problem of the emergence of complexity. If you posit this God, at the end of the day, you still don't know how complexity forms. No matter what form it takes, "Goddiddit" is still simply a dishonest way of saying "I don't know and I don't care to know."

[PickelledEggs]

I could reject the belief a Creator caused and designed a universe for the purpose of creating life and subscribe to the belief that mindless-lifeless forces without plan or intent or a degree in biology or physics blindly stumbled upon the formula to create the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets and finally something utterly unlike itself...life. Thus subscribe to the notion we owe our existence to the most fortuitous act of serendipity imaginable. Of course I'd would have to accept this counter notion on faith...I don't see any atheists on this board stumbling over themselves to provide evidence such could or did happen.

At the core of the debate is two competing hypothesis

1. That the universe and life was intentionally caused, engineered and designed by a Creator
2. That mindless forces without plan or intent fortuitously caused the universe and life to exist.

The irony is that many atheists find it difficult to believe an intelligent transcendent personal agent could cause and design a universe to exist for the purpose of life but that mindless forces without having any intelligence, plan or intent could do so.

You don't have to disprove God, just provide compelling reasons and evidence that would lead me to one conclusion over another.

I wouldn't be able to disprove god, nor would anyone else. In order for something to be disproved, it needs to be proved in the first place.

You seem to be misled on what science is claiming. Science only claims what it finds and is able to test what is true and repeatable in nature. From what science has found, all things from where we are now on this multi-billion-year timeline that we're on to all the way back to the big bang, there is no evidence of a god found. Nothing with extraordinary conscious creation power.

Can you argue that a god with conscious creation power caused the big bang? possibly. But I would have to follow up with a major question that would be begging to be asked:

Who or what made that god?

And a bonus question would be:
If another god made the god that made our universe's conscious creator, who or what made that?

And so-forth...

You don't even need to understand science to realize that the logic of a god is completely flawed. If you did want to throw science in to the mix though, you will quickly realize that as science makes newer and newer discoveries, the room for evidence of a god becomes increasingly small.

[GSOgymrat]

That the oak was planted with intent
or grows by accident
matters not to the bird nesting in the tree.

[Moralnihilist]

Hello Moralnihilist

In your opinion it wasn't due to God, in mine it was.

Wrong again fucktard. I CLEARLY said that the only honest answer is I DONT KNOW.
Reading isn't a strong suit of yours is 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.

Scientific theory isn't evidence.

According to whom?

Is it your wish that only atheists post to this board or do you wish to have open dialog? Our differences of viewpoint are philosophical only. I'm posting to have a debate, not convert anyone. Theism is a philosophy not a religion.

It is my(as well as many others on this forum) experience that theotards such as yourself come here only to preach. If a theist came here with no interest in preaching they would be more than welcome. In fact there have been several theists who have come and gone that didn't preach and they became well known and liked members of this forum. So get off your cross asshat.

Heard of it and subscribe to it. Evolution in and of itself is a fact and can be offered as evidence. As it stands now, I could make a better case for atheism than the atheists thus far. First thing I'd do is drop the ridiculous atheism as a lack of belief definition.

Frankly I could give two fucks what you would do. The word means exactly that a lack of belief. Nothing more, nothing less.

I didn't claim to have seen something, I claim to live in a universe in which life exists and I can believe we are the intentional result of a Creator or the equally if not more outlandish claim we are the result of mindless forces that didn't intend to create a universe or one of the complexity required to create and support life. It just happened by accident.

Neat-o a False Dilemma AND a First Cause fallacy all in one.... 

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

Why are you so emotional? Did some religious person put a clothespin on your pee pee?

Actually shit for brains, I am an asshole not emotional. You come here to preach. And then have the unmitigated balls to try to tell me(and others on this forum) what counts as evidence. You want to know what IS evidence? It is simply repeatable, testable, falsifiable, VERIFIABLE evidence. Anything less simply won't work. Just because you are ignorant/retarded enough to believe something on ZERO evidence does not mean that anyone else here is. Put simply(for your pathetic mind) unless you can provide that, I would suggest that you move along.


in your

and then

[Icarus]

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.

You and all those people don't understand the size of the universe and probability, at all, at all at all. Learn some math, learn something about the universe, stop purposefully being ignorant or stupid of information humanity has worked very hard to put at your fingertips. You're squandering a wonderful gift humans have given you.