The Case for Theism

[Hijiri Byakuren]

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

It's just you. The more you see a bad argument, the more obvious its flaws become.

[stromboli]

It's just you. The more you see a bad argument, the more obvious its flaws become.

I see your point. and come to think of it, stupid is pretty hard to quantify.

[PickelledEggs]

15-love!

-Nam

Lol that's tennis

Sent from your mom

[Nam]

Lol that's tennis

Sent from your mom

I thought it was Volleyball.

-Nam

[PickelledEggs]

I thought it was Volleyball.

-Nam

I think it's also volleyball.

Not basketball though haha

Sent from your mom

[DrewM]

Hakurei Reimu,

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?

If you wish to dispute my case then do your own legwork.

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.

If you're arguing evolution, I have already stated I don't have any qualms with it. However, I am skeptical that in the case of evolution, or star and planet development or any other process that appears to have created greater complexity from something less complex. I won't deny its possible...lets just say I lack that belief. I believe its the laws of nature and their complexity and processes borrow from that complexity. The amount of information and available complexity remain the same.

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.

Who said its not complicated? I'm not assuming a higher order universe I'm hypothesizing a transcendent cause to the universe and our existence. Even if the universe came into the existence from a singularity, that itself is transcendent to the universe.

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.

No, I merely cited the existence of sentience as a fact that comports with the belief in theism. No one would postulate that mindless lifeless forces would create life and mind. That's not an expectation of such, its an aberration.

Cmon Drew join in, Row Row Row yer boat... etc

For a theist on an atheist river its decidedly an upstream row...

[stromboli]

It is apparent you are not going to change your view no matter what we do. It is also apparent you lack a basic understanding of argument. And likewise it is apparent that nobody here is impressed with anything you have submitted, and won't be at any time in the future.

This is a huge exercise in stupidity. I'm not going to respond any further because you are not worth my time. If you aren't smart enough to see the futility of what you are doing, then you truly are stupid.

[leo]

Hello the_antithesis,

No what I need to do is offer evidence and reason why its my opinion God exists. If I stated the belief that GM produces cars, the first line of evidence to establish that claim would be the existence of cars. I agree that doesn't 'prove' GM produces cars but if cars didn't exist my belief would be null and void right out of the starting gate, true?


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.

N. N

The real question is how often do you crap and fart?

[DrewM]

Algae,

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.

Evidence in a court of law are simply facts that comport with a belief.  The three facts I have cited comport with the belief we are the result of a Creator who intended our existence. I made this clear in the OP. I know most atheists have a vested interest in claiming there is no evidence in favor of the existence of God because it is foundational to the claim they disbelieve or lack belief in the existence of God due to lack of evidence. They couldn't make that claim and admit there is evidence. I can call it evidence because it is evidence.

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.

There's always a problem when my adversaries attempt to sum up my arguments. When I'm finished I'll make my own closing argument.

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?

Ha, if I wanted to be taken seriously, all I'd have to do is agree with atheism. I went to the link you posted. Here is an excerpt.

Why the "fine-tuning" argument is invalid

Expressed in the language of probability theory, we understand the "fine-tuning" argument to claim that if naturalistic law applies, then the probability that a randomly-selected universe would be "life-friendly" is very small, or in mathematical terms, P(F|N)<<1. Notice that this condition is not a predicate like L, N and F; Rather, it is a statement about the probability distribution P(F|N), considered as it applies to all possible universes. For this reason, it is not possible to express the "fine-tuning" condition in terms of one of the arguments A or B of a probability function P(A|B). It is, rather, a statement about how large those probabilities are.

The "fine-tuning" argument then reasons that if P(F|N)<<1, then it follows that P(N|F)<<1. In ordinary English, this says that if the probability that a randomly-selected universe would be life-friendly (given naturalism) is very small, then the probability that naturalism is true, given the observed fact that the universe is "life-friendly," is also very small. This, however, is an elementary if common blunder in probability theory. One cannot simply exchange the two arguments in a probability like P(F|N) and get a valid result. A simple example will suffice to show this.
Example

    Let A="I am holding a Royal Flush."

    Let B="I will win the poker hand."

    It is evident that P(A|B) is nearly 0. Almost all poker hands are won with hands other than a Royal Flush. On the other hand, it is equally clear that P(B|A) is nearly 1. If you have a Royal Flush, you are virtually certain to win the poker hand.

I'm sure to fellow scientists who are accustomed to speaking in such jargon this makes a big splash. If you and I were debating the existence of God before a audience of average people, and you presented this as an argument most folks wouldn't have a clue as to why this leads them to conclude the fine-tuning argument is invalid (not to mention we'd have to revive them from an induced coma). Moreover, with a simple web search, I could find an equally impressive (if not obscure and incomprehensible) article that refutes this one but few if any in the audience would comprehend why the article I cite refutes it.

Lastly, these are theoretical  arguments from deduction and induction. Its not as if either Ross or Michael Ikeda produced repeatable verifiable experiments that prove their point of view.

Lets discuss the term personal incredulity. At some point like clock work atheists always accuse me of personal incredulity.

in•cre•du•li•ty
[in-kri-doo-li-tee, -dyoo-] Show IPA
noun
the quality or state of being incredulous; inability or unwillingness to believe.

Synonyms
disbelief, skepticism, doubt.

Antonyms
faith.


It's interesting to note that most atheists freely use the words disbelief (or lack of belief) skepticism and doubt to voice their opinion about theism. Apparently its only personal incredulity when a theist questions whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that fortuitously coughed a universe into existence with the characteristics to produce sentient life that could question how its existence came about. Notice the antonym; Faith. What you're saying when you accuse me of personal incredulity is that I lack faith.

[the_antithesis]

Evidence in a court of law are simply facts that comport with a belief. 

No it isn't.

In a court of law, evidence is fact that ARE THE BASIS FOR A FUCKING BELIEF.

This has already been explained to you and why they are not, NOT the same thing, but you still get it wrong, you stupid fucking cunt.

It's interesting to note that most atheists freely use the words disbelief (or lack of belief) skepticism and doubt to voice their opinion about theism. Apparently its only personal incredulity when a theist questions whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that fortuitously coughed a universe into existence with the characteristics to produce sentient life that could question how its existence came about. Notice the antonym; Faith. What you're saying when you accuse me of personal incredulity is that I lack faith.

Part of this is correct in that it is not god we disbelieve. God isn't here to be disbelieved. Only fucktards like you. You say bullshit and we say we don't believe your bullshit. Atheism in a nutshell. Not believing idiots.

Faith, on the other hand, is not the opposite of disbelief. Faith is pride. Faith says "I don't care what the evidence is, I cannot possibly be wrong and will never change." Don't bother displacing this pride by saying you have faith in god. Your god is not here, so who decided that was your god speaking? You did. Your faith is ultimately in yourself and when you refuse correction, that's just your stupidity and pride talking. Not god. Just you and your pride. Faith is pride.

[DrewM]

This has already been explained to you and why they are not, NOT the same thing, but you still get it wrong, you stupid fucking cunt.

Am I really supposed to take what a guy in a ridiculous looking outfit says seriously? Are you supposed to be some kind of superhero? You look like a buffoon..

[Poison Tree]

I am skeptical that in the case of evolution, or star and planet development or any other process that appears to have created greater complexity from something less complex

How do you explain snow flakes and sunflowers?

The amount of information and available complexity remain the same.

Define information and complexity and describe how you would measure each to determine if an increase occurred

No one would postulate that mindless lifeless forces would create life and mind.

Again, science is literately full of people who do. Claiming no one does doesn't silence them.

Evidence in a court of law are simply facts that comport with a belief. 

To the exclusion of others. I couldn't say "gravity exists, therefore you clubbed your sister to death". Gravity comports with you clubbing your sister to death (perhaps is even necessary for you clubbing your sister to death)  but is also compatible with you not having done so. You haven't shown why the existence of sentient life supports god over not god. You have merely asserted that it does and stated, wrongly, that no one claims otherwise.

[the_antithesis]

Am I really supposed to take what a guy in a ridiculous looking outfit says seriously? Are you supposed to be some kind of superhero? You look like a buffoon..

What's the matter, boy? Run out of worthwhile arguments and have to try to pick on my avatar which was obviously chosen because it looks stupid? You're even terrible at insulting people. And I wasn't the only one here who'd pointed out how you don't understand how evidence works, especially in a court of law. So your witty rejoinder has no balls. You fail at life so hard.

It's because of that pride that you fail. It's funny because even your bible says that he who hates correction is stupid. Probably should have said that continuing to make the same mistakes after you'd been corrected is even more stupid. But that's because you are no good at thinking, but you think you are. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Am I really supposed to take what a guy in a ridiculous looking outfit says seriously? Are you supposed to be some kind of superhero? You look like a buffoon..

I'll take someone who looks like a buffoon over someone who acts like one any day.

[leo]

I'm  a idiot theist asshole and I want to troll the site. I don't give a shit about reality and logic. I don't understand  science a bit. I want to convert you to my bullshit fairly tales.
I want to shit your carpet. I'm also a dishonest cunt.                                       

Finally the truth is out ! Thanks drewm!