The Case for Theism

[aitm]

The kid is telling us how well he plays baseball while dribbling a basketball...I am not impressed with any of his cut and paste drivel of old.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I wonder how it would go over if I was asked (as I was) to make a case for theism and I gave this self serving response?

Here's the thing I said in the paragraph immediately following, you twit:

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?

The point being is that we're not here to be your fucking classroom. You do not have the background to understand what is being said, let alone participate in the discussion. Your personal incredulity is not evidence that there is something to this god thing of yours.

Why would it be surprising that something more complex created something complex and on what grounds is such even more unlikely to occur?

Because it's answering the question of "why is there complex stuff in the universe like life" with "MOAR COMPLEXITY!" You're building the wrong damn way.

If we trace back the existence of a car, we trace it back to something more complex than the car. Same with computers, cell phones, tablets and so forth.

And none of them reproduce. That is a key property of life that is lacking in every other of your examples. Since life is able to reproduce, complexity can be built up through trial and error mediated by the filter of survival. That implies that life can start as a very simple thing that by all rights can barely be called alive and then evolve that complexity. I don't have to assume complexity from the get-go to get complexity out. But with your notion, you're assuming the complexity from the start. Your guess solves nothing that I actually want answered.

I'll offer you another reason why it's very plausible this universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God. Because we (humans) as personal intelligent agents do the same thing (on a much smaller scale) that I allege God did. Have you ever played in any of the popular virtual world simulation games like World of Warcraft, Second life or Everquest? Granted those 'universes' are simulated but nevertheless humans are the transcendent gods who caused those universes to exist. We simulate playing God all the time.

Irrelevant. Each of those simulated universes is simulated on hardware made in a universe that actually exists. If you're assuming this god thing, then you are assuming that there is a higher order universe that actually exists for god to act in. Once again, you have not solved the puzzle of existence. You have merely pushed it back and complicated it.

Also, don't think I haven't noticed that you have used in this 'reason' an analogy directly paralleling Hijiri Byakuren's. This is funny, since you referred to hers* as "a rambling diatribe." So what does this make your 'reason'?

Anyone? Anyone?

3. The existence of sentient life.

So you're having your God take credit for the evolution of Homo sapiens, saying that our intelligence would make no sense if there wasn't an intelligence guiding towards that eventuality, even though intelligence and a developed sense of self (sentience) are actually pretty potent survival tools that would be selected for in higher animals.

I'm seeing nothing here that gives you leave to criticize us atheists on our lack of belief in your mystical fairy in the sky.

*I don't actually know HB's gender.

[stromboli]

So.... 3 fallacious arguments in a row. does not bode well in the long term, methinks.

[Nam]

The kid is telling us how well he plays baseball while dribbling a basketball...I am not impressed with any of his cut and paste drivel of old.

That's the problem with many Christiansâ,,¢: no thoughts of their own.

-Nam

[Green Bottle]

Row Row Row yer boat gently down the stream,
merrily merrily merrily merrily,
life is but a dream,
Cmon Drew join in, Row Row Row yer boat... etc       

[PickelledEggs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLI0GMMbQaQ

HAHAHA I literally laughed out loud at the "I can count to potato"

[DrewM]

Hello Stromboli,

At least in this post you're responding to what I wrote...

The mere fact of sentient life does not prove god.

I've never said any line of evidence or the case I am making 'proves' the existence of God. From the OP

First I will make an opening statement. As I stated in my introduction my belief in theism is a belief, an opinion, what I think is true. I don’t claim it’s a fact it’s true that God exists, I admit I could be wrong. Therefore I don’t need to ‘prove’ God exists, I only need to provide a reasonable case from facts in favor of my opinion. 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).

Whether or not the existence of sentient beings or the other lines of evidence I've cited are meritorious is up to impartial undecided folks to decide, not the people I engaged in a debate with. 

Secondly I wrote, the existence of sentient life.
I didn't say what sentience, or limit it to people. 

So sentience may be nothing more than an unintended but natural result of evolution.

Evolution maybe the mechanism the Creator used to produce sentience.

Sgos,

I don't rule a god out.  However, unlike you, I don't rule one in.

Good, you don't deny God exists and neither do I. It's not a matter of ruling God in, its a matter of having an opinion.

That's probably because there is no evidence for such a agent.  So yes, it is difficult to accept.  However, that doesn't mean it's ruled out.  It's just that it's no more compelling than saying we don't yet have an answer.

There is evidence, I have submitted three lines of evidence thus far. You can say you don't agree with the evidence, or the evidence doesn't persuade you but you can't call it non-evidence just because you don't agree with it.

I'll offer you another reason why it's very plausible this universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God. Because we (humans) as personal intelligent agents do the same thing (on a much smaller scale) that I allege God did. Have you ever played in any of the popular virtual world simulation games like World of Warcraft, Second life or Everquest? Granted those 'universes' are simulated but nevertheless humans are the transcendent gods who caused those universes to exist. We simulate playing God all the time.

Unfortunately, this argument while somewhat clever, is irrelevant and/or non-sequitur:

Humans make computer games that simulate environments.
Therefore, a god created the universe. ???

I'm not making an iron clad premise. I'm making an argument from the fact that we as sentient human beings create and cause virtual universes to exist and that we are transcendent to such universes. It demonstrates the hypothesis I am defending is viable. Its also another line of evidence whether it meets with your approval or not.

Algae,


No one would propose that mindless forces exist; therefore I predict the existence of a universe that supports life and sentient life so that the intelligent beings can debate the cause of their existence.

You really went out on a limb there, predicting something that already happened.

As Casey Stengel once said, 'Making predictions is really hard...especially about the future'.

The argument I am making is that the existence of the universe, life and sentient life isn't the model or prediction one would make who claims only mindless lifeless forces exist (if anything). The existence of the universe, life and sentient life is an aberration of the belief that such are the result of mindless lifeless forces not an expectation of such a force.

Hello PopeyesPappy

It is a possibility that our life containing universe exists due to the intentional manipulation of an intelligent creator. It is also possible that our life containing universe exists due to natural processes and no intelligent creator was responsible.

Fair enough. I have subscribed to either opinion at various times.

While genetic mutations may be random, natural selection acting on those mutations is not an accident. Neither are the processes that formed the stars which created the elements heavier than helium nor the chemical processes that converted those elements into the chemical compounds necessary for life. Your belief that the whole argument against god is it was all an accident is a straw man.

I wasn't referring to genetic mutations, as I have stated elsewhere I don't have qualms with evolution. You're suggesting however, that since matter appears to be bound by the laws of physics that therefore the processes mentioned above aren't accidental or random. That would only be true under two circumstances, that the laws of nature are actual laws and that matter is compelled to obey them. Or that an intelligent transcendent being designed the universe to operate as it does. I don't believe you subscribe to either scenario. If not, then the laws of nature are just what we happen to observe to be true the overwhelming majority of time but they weren't planned, designed or intended to be as they are and thus it was unplanned and accidental (though fortunate for us) they operate as they do.

And this is our problem with you and your ilk. You are here to preach. You want to present your argument, but by your own admission don’t want to discuss available alternatives to your hypothesis.

I'd be happy to discuss any and all such alternatives to the theistic hypothesis. I'm not emotionally attached to theism, I have in the past subscribed to atheism. I'm a theist because in my opinion, that's the best explanation to the existence of the universe and humans.

[aitm]

I'll offer you another reason why it's very plausible this universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God.

so you have passed from a "creator" to a defined god now. So please tell us, which of these gods "commonly referred to" are you trying to pass off as a designer of a universe? The one who can't beat a iron age army because they had iron wheels? The one who proclaims tatoos and shrimp are forbidden? Please let us know about this almighty creator you have chosen to follow.

Since you now claim that this personal agent is referred to as god you have laid the parameter to one of the "gods" of humanity...which one?

[Moralnihilist]

Ive read all of this supposed evidence that you have presented. There is zero ACTUAL evidence in any of it. All you have done is make a baseless claim(remember my vision). Baseless claims are NOT evidence. Not here, not in this supposed court style "argument" that you are attempting to present, not anywhere on the fucking planet. All you have done is waste server space.

I repeat again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeY6vSMk5A

[Poison Tree]

There is evidence, I have submitted three lines of evidence thus far. You can say you don't agree with the evidence, or the evidence doesn't persuade you but you can't call it non-evidence just because you don't agree with it.

We can call it not evidence because it is not evidence.

I'll offer you another reason why it's very plausible this universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God. Because we (humans) as personal intelligent agents do the same thing (on a much smaller scale) that I allege God did.

By that logic it is very plausible that mountains were molded by the hands of giants because I've done the same thing on a much smaller scale with sand and pebbles.

No one would propose that mindless forces exist; therefore I predict the existence of a universe that supports life and sentient life so that the intelligent beings can debate the cause of their existence. [/i]

I already listed several.

The argument I am making is that the existence of the universe, life and sentient life isn't the model or prediction one would make who claims only mindless lifeless forces exist (if anything).

The world of science is literally full of people who do.

Let me sum up the argument you are making and see if you can spot the problem: Why do things exist? Because god created them. How do I know god created them? Because things exist.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

so you have passed from a "creator" to a defined god now. So please tell us, which of these gods "commonly referred to" are you trying to pass off as a designer of a universe? The one who can't beat a iron age army because they had iron wheels? The one who proclaims tatoos and shrimp are forbidden? Please let us know about this almighty creator you have chosen to follow.

Since you now claim that this personal agent is referred to as god you have laid the parameter to one of the "gods" of humanity...which one?

There you go again, using that whole "logic" argument again. Don't you know you just have to have faith?

[Hakurei Reimu]

I'd be happy to discuss any and all such alternatives to the theistic hypothesis. I'm not emotionally attached to theism, I have in the past subscribed to atheism. I'm a theist because in my opinion, that's the best explanation to the existence of the universe and humans.

And of course it comes down to your obviously uneducated opinion, doesn't it? See, it's plain as day from here that you are, in fact, uneducated. You don't know what evidence is, and you don't know how the edifice of scientific knowledge was built, and are ignorant of its content. Why should this opinion be given any sort of respect whatsoever over the slew of scientifically educated "opinions" (read, consensus) that continue to find no role for God whatsoever in the origin and workings of our universe?

If you want your opinion to be taken seriously at all, you need to pony up and do some legwork. You need to learn the science behind all of your points 1-3 and what the actual state of scientific knowledge is before your opinion will have any weight at all. For instance, do you know of the existence of the Jefferys-Ikeda argument which takes the fact of our existing in a universe with life with fine tuned universal laws and comes up with the opposite conclusion to yours? What makes your explanation better than those of Michael Ikeda and William H. Jefferys, whose analysis directly contradicts yours?

Is it education that makes your opinion better? No, both are scientists of some note, and you have dubious scientific credentials.

Is it evidence? No, they take essentially the same facts as yours to come up with their opposing conclusion.

Is it in analysis? No, they draw a straightforward analysis of the situation following the principles of Bayesian analysis, while your "analysis" isn't one. Note: staring agog because of your incredulity and waxing poetic about mindless forces and minds is not an analysis.

No, there is no way that your opinion is superior to that of Ikeda and Jefferys. Yours does not deserve respect, even from yourself.

[stromboli]

All you've done is submit 3 fallacious arguments, none of which are remotely close to being evidence. You are as self deluded as your predecessor, Casparov. Go away.

[Nam]

The kid is telling us how well he plays baseball while dribbling a basketball...

15-love!

-Nam

[stromboli]

Is it me or are the theists that come on here getting stupider?