News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

The Case for Theism

Started by DrewM, June 27, 2014, 11:53:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

DrewM

Hakurei Reimu

I know you and others will always maintain there is no evidence but you're just talking to yourself.

QuoteCourtroom evidence ≠ scientific evidence.

No it doesn't. I stated in the original post in no uncertain terms the type of evidence I'm presenting qualifies as evidence under the legal system. Did you read the OP?

QuoteWhile this is strictly speaking correct, you are fishing for me to provide you "evidence." You don't need evidence. You need an education. Education is a full-time job and I'm not going to get paid one dime for educating you, so forget it. Get educated, then come back and we can have a productive discussion, because then you'll have sufficient background such that you won't be talking out of your ass.

It's completely up to you whether you wish to respond, how you're suggesting I lured you into it is beyond me. Can I lure you into sending me some money?


QuoteA trancendent cause requires a higher order universe to create a universe within whether you like it or not....because then you'll have sufficient background such that you won't be talking out of your ass.

I think you're talking out your ass. How would you know (or anyone know) that a higher order universe is required to create a universe? Secondly is a alleged higher order universe anything more than a theoretical concept?

QuoteIf you want there to be a cause that changes a condition of no universe to a condition with a universe, there'd better at least be cause and effect.

I would think so but there are still a few atheists who opt for the uncaused out of nothing universe.

QuoteThere are plenty of things we would not predict form the forces of nature, but happen anyway. Like I said before, you're being unable to imagine a scenario happening in a certain way only indicates that you lack the imagination able to grasp it, not that you have any insight on the truth of the matter. I'm waiting for a specific line of reasoning why "mindless, lifeless forces" could not create life and mind.

I do find it difficult to believe (or for that matter to imagine) mindless lifeless forces congealing into a universe chock full of evidently inviolable laws of physics that minus plan, intent design or desire wind up producing something utterly unlike itself, life and sentience. Let's put it another way, as difficult as it might be to imagine a personal agent having the power and intelligence to create what we observe how much more difficult is it to imagine mindless forces did so without plan or intent? Which on the face of it is more miraculous?

This is the point I was making earlier. No information content has been added to the universe. Whatever subsequently happened in the universe was because the laws of physics allowed it to occur. Helium turned into the more complex forms of matter because of the laws of physics compelled (or allowed it) to occur. The complexity to do so was written in the laws of physics.

The second barrier isn't lack of imagination. Its our hands on daily experience with how things interact without a plan or design behind them.

QuoteThere are plenty of things we would not predict form the forces of nature, but happen anyway. Like I said before, you're being unable to imagine a scenario happening in a certain way only indicates that you lack the imagination able to grasp it, not that you have any insight on the truth of the matter. I'm waiting for a specific line of reasoning why "mindless, lifeless forces" could not create life and mind.

Think about it for a moment, is your belief that the universe and our existence was unintentionally caused by mindless forces due to your ability to imagine that's how it happened? Isn't it supposed to be predicated on available facts and data? I grant you a great deal of unexpected things happen from the forces of nature like galaxies, stars, planets and ultimately life and sentience but only because the laws of physics we observe cause such things to happen. It begs the question why are the laws of physics that couldn't care less about our existence, or whether galaxies, stars and planets formed nevertheless wound up in what appears to be a very exacting configuration to not only allow our existence but to cause our existence as well.

I find it interesting that rather than explaining in your own words why the argument in the paper invalidates the fine tuning argument you just post the link. If you firmly understand the paper you cited, you should be able to put it into lay terms so anyone on this board can understand it and agree or disagree with it.

QuoteLay terms? Okay, here it is: a God can create a universe where no life can naturally exist, yet exists anyway. Such a universe would be a dead giveaway supernatural-governed universe. Observing that life exists and the universe is governed by laws that do not allow its existence is a huge support to supernaturalism, and as such observing the contrary data â€"that life exists in the universe and that universe allows for its existenceâ€" cannot support supernaturalism in any form and may serve to undermine it.

I appreciate your effort and this is something I asked you to do. Let me think about it and I will respond in another post.

You can't imagine how a universe could be designed and engineered to exist by a transcendent agent of enormous power there for naturedidit.

Quote
Nonsense. I can imagine it just fine. Just no fucking evidence for it.

The reason you can imagine it just fine is because intelligent designing and engineering is a known observed repeatable process for complex mechanisms to occur. As thinking sentient human beings we are able to create things of phenomenal complexity. We don't have to leave it to our imagination we observe it all the time. As I pointed out before, as thinking sentient beings we can also produce 'virtual' universes where we can write the laws of physics and observe what happens (or doesn't happen) under such conditions.

josephpalazzo

Been away for the last three days. Didn't think this thread would go so far.  What's wrong with you guys? Why is this chew toy still around? Oh well...

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 04:11:06 PM
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?

A singularity at Planck scale means that our present theory is not valid in that regime. It certainly doesn't mean that the supernatural exists. There are dozens of cosmological models that deal with pre-Bang activities. It remains for new observations to come by and filtered which  model will prevail. This is another difference between atheists and theists - atheists are not afraid to say that they don't know, instead of fabricating like theists wild speculations to prop up their beliefs.



QuoteMoreover 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).


Unless you are a physicist, I would strongly suggest to not use the word "quantum" as you are totally clueless of what that theory means. And those observations made in the years of the early 20th century are NOT inexplicable, they have been explained very successfully. Moreover those explanations have absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural.

DrewM

QuoteBeen away for the last three days. Didn't think this thread would go so far.  What's wrong with you guys? Why is this chew toy still around? Oh well...

I'm having a fairly reasonable debate with a few of the members on this board which claims to be 'a community website for freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and believers.  If all you wish to do is silence dissenting opinion I'll be happy to leave you to yourselves...

QuoteA singularity at Planck scale means that our present theory is not valid in that regime. It certainly doesn't mean that the supernatural exists. There are dozens of cosmological models that deal with pre-Bang activities. It remains for new observations to come by and filtered which  model will prevail. This is another difference between atheists and theists - atheists are not afraid to say that they don't know, instead of fabricating like theists wild speculations to prop up their beliefs.

My point was about a demarcation between what is labeled natural and what is labeled supernatural and what criteria establishes either. If phenomena exists that doesn't fall under the category of the laws of physics or time as we know them are classified as natural, then what can be classified as supernatural? The answer is nothing, the goal posts continue to move. The working definition of supernatural should be the supernatural is something that can't happen unless it turns out it can happen in which case its 'natural' whatever that means. 

QuoteUnless you are a physicist, I would strongly suggest to not use the word "quantum" as you are totally clueless of what that theory means. And those observations made in the years of the early 20th century are NOT inexplicable, they have been explained very successfully. Moreover those explanations have absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural.

There are some aspects of quantum mechanics that are understood to some degree. There are some aspects such as spooky interference which barring some breakthrough I hadn't heard of is still a mystery. The point is, 100 years ago such things might have fallen into the 'supernatural' category but now since they are known to happen they fall in the natural category because the goal posts demarcating what is natural vs supernatural were moved.

frosty

I do notice that Theists seem to use the 'goal post' factor quite a bit these days. Like they think it's some type of grave smackdown to Atheists and Skeptics everywhere.

However, this was not a comment against you, DrewM, as it seems you used it in a more appropriate manner. Carry on.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 03:55:54 PM
I'm having a fairly reasonable debate with a few of the members on this board which claims to be 'a community website for freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and believers.  If all you wish to do is silence dissenting opinion I'll be happy to leave you to yourselves...

It's not a question of silencing the dissenters but sliencing those who come here with the same dated arguments that we have debated and debunked literally a thousand times.

QuoteMy point was about a demarcation between what is labeled natural and what is labeled supernatural and what criteria establishes either. If phenomena exists that doesn't fall under the category of the laws of physics or time as we know them are classified as natural, then what can be classified as supernatural?

For instance pulling a real rabbit out of thin air, or moving mount Everest to Washington DC, IOW, phenomena that no known laws of physics could ever, ever, ever explain!


QuoteThe answer is nothing, the goal posts continue to move. The working definition of supernatural should be the supernatural is something that can't happen unless it turns out it can happen in which case its 'natural' whatever that means. 

Show me one instance when the goal post was moved.

QuoteThere are some aspects of quantum mechanics that are understood to some degree. There are some aspects such as spooky interference which barring some breakthrough I hadn't heard of is still a mystery. The point is, 100 years ago such things might have fallen into the 'supernatural' category but now since they are known to happen they fall in the natural category because the goal posts demarcating what is natural vs supernatural were moved.


You keep repeating the same thing over and over like a broken record. There is nothing that led to QM that could even barely qualified as "supernatural". The two-slit experiment? No way, QM has the equation to describe it adequately. So what it is you have in mind that you think could ever qualify as "supernatural"? So far, a lot of postering on your part but little in detail.

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
Hakurei Reimu

I know you and others will always maintain there is no evidence but you're just talking to yourself.

No it doesn't. I stated in the original post in no uncertain terms the type of evidence I'm presenting qualifies as evidence under the legal system. Did you read the OP?
Yes, but I don't want legal evidence. I want scientific evidence, because what you want to settle is a scientific issue, not a legal one. I don't care if your evidence would meet a courtroom standard; I want it to meet a scientific standard.

Scientific evidence or GTFO.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
It's completely up to you whether you wish to respond, how you're suggesting I lured you into it is beyond me.
Check the title of this thread that you created. You are presenting a case for theism, only we deny you based on the lack of evidence for your case for your positive claim. Instead of providing additional evidence that meets our standards (or even an attempt to do so), you instead insist that your evidence is sufficient and challenge us to disprove your positive claim.

Don't think your tactics are in any way strange to us.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
I think you're talking out your ass. How would you know (or anyone know) that a higher order universe is required to create a universe?
Because you can tell the condition without a universe of our order from a condition with a universe of our order. You have a space empty of our universe, then you have a space filled with our universe â€" otherwise there's nothing to change. The change itself requires time, again because the space is empty of our universe, then it has our universe within it. This is a basic universe in and of itself. Perhaps not one as complicated as our own, but that's irrelevant.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
Secondly is a alleged higher order universe anything more than a theoretical concept?
It isn't. However, you don't seem to realize that a higher-order universe is what YOUR hypothesis requires. You don't need such a thing unless you are supposing that the universe is created. I don't suppose that the universe is created; you do. Ergo, I'm not the one who needs a higher-order universe; you do.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
I would think so but there are still a few atheists who opt for the uncaused out of nothing universe.
Perhaps there are, but I don't pretend that they know what their talking about.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
I do find it difficult to believe (or for that matter to imagine) mindless lifeless forces congealing into a universe chock full of evidently inviolable laws of physics that minus plan, intent design or desire wind up producing something utterly unlike itself, life and sentience.
Let me put this in simple terms.

You claim that everything else in the universe is "utterly unlike" life and sentience.

I do not believe you.

Explain why.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
Let's put it another way, as difficult as it might be to imagine a personal agent having the power and intelligence to create what we observe how much more difficult is it to imagine mindless forces did so without plan or intent? Which on the face of it is more miraculous?
Life has no plan or intent. It has a propensity for change and the process of evolution favors life able to reproduce itself. There was no plan for life to develop on this world; it simply a quirk of chemistry that there exists a spectrum of chemicals and mixtures of chemicals that are able to self-catalyze copies of themselves from raw materials. Over time, the first such process was refined and gained sophistication through the tinkering of evolution, until it seemed like there was this unbridgable divide between life and non-life. This gap is mere illusion.

Similarly with intelligence. Intelligence and sentience runs the gammut of things with barely plans or intent at all, like the parimecium and the wasp, up to us humans. We surround ourself with the trappings of civilization and think that there is this unbridgable gap between the animal world and us, but again it is an illusion of our circumstances. Strip us of our civilization, and we are nothing but sophisticated apes, and we behave accordingly.

On the face of it, our natural black-white thinking leads us to the illusion of a plan and intent for us to exist. Dig deeper, and the plan and intent disappear as the illusion it is, leaving no role for a personal agent to create us.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
This is the point I was making earlier. No information content has been added to the universe. Whatever subsequently happened in the universe was because the laws of physics allowed it to occur. Helium turned into the more complex forms of matter because of the laws of physics compelled (or allowed it) to occur. The complexity to do so was written in the laws of physics.
But not explicitly written into the laws of physics. If you have nuclear forces that allow nucleons to bind together into nuclei, you're going to get nuclei of varying species. That we have the periodic table is a consequence of nuclear physics, but that's a long way from saying that some agent explicitly laid it out.

If you have laws such that you have an atom like carbon that has a very rich chemistry, you're likely to end up with something that self-catalyzes copies of itself somewhere down the line. That we have life is a consequence of organic chemistry, but that's a long way from saying that some agent explicitly laid out organic chemistry for that purpose.

If you have laws such that it is possible for life forms that evolve to respond to their environment (and you can't really have life with staying power without that), you're going to end up with life that will respond to its changing environment (due to the fact that this is a very useful adaptation), perhaps with a sophistication that gives operational sentience.

After that, you just need to roll the dice a bunch of times, and the evolution of some kind of intelligence is nearly certain somewhere in the universe.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
The second barrier isn't lack of imagination. Its our hands on daily experience with how things interact without a plan or design behind them.
Most of the things that happen to you happens without a plan or design behind it. It's called, "Shit happens." The world is a noisy place, full of randomness and chance happenings beyond our designs or ken. Our civilization tries to get a handle on that, and to a certain extent does a pretty good job of managing our affairs. But outside civilization, and even sometimes within it, it's a jungle out there. Furthermore, we find that the people who are best able to make their way in this world are not the ones with meticulous plans, but the ones able to think on their feet and capitalize on opportunities.

To my eyes, the world has a derth of plan and intent.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
Think about it for a moment, is your belief that the universe and our existence was unintentionally caused by mindless forces due to your ability to imagine that's how it happened? Isn't it supposed to be predicated on available facts and data?
It's a product of both, although I can only imagine in broad strokes. I don't pretend to be an expert in cosmology, astrophysics, chemistry, biology, and cognative neuroscience, but thanks to my strong scientific background I am able to appreciate the conclusions of those fields, and in them we find no room for your God to act.

We can see the spectrum of sentience from amoeba to humans, so it is easy to imagine a complete spectrum dispite the gaps. We can see the spectrum of life-like behaviors in simple physical and chemical systems to modern life and imagine the complete spectrum dispite the gaps. And finally, the question of ultimate orgins are in many cases improperly asked from the get-go and are thus meaningless. No one has been able to demonstrate how there can be a time before the universe's earliest moments, a very necessary prerequisite for any sort of creation. Those few who may be able to demonstrate such are doing so in a way that, again, leaves no room for your God.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
It begs the question why are the laws of physics that couldn't care less about our existence, or whether galaxies, stars and planets formed nevertheless wound up in what appears to be a very exacting configuration to not only allow our existence but to cause our existence as well.
Regardless of how the laws of physics appears to be "a very exacting configuration to not only allow our existence," they do in fact very much allow our existence, albeit in very restricted pockets. There is no process in life or intelligence that is disallowed by the laws of physics to any extent we are able to verify.

In short, this is simply your uneducated opinion talking.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
I appreciate your effort and this is something I asked you to do. Let me think about it and I will respond in another post.
Okay, but much the same thing was said in the paper itself, had you read it. Sure, Jefferys and Ikeda might not have used my exact words, but their own layman's summary is very much parallels mine. Or my summary parallels theirs. (Hell, even the "prong of their argument" phrase is pretty much lifted directly from the paper.)

Admit it. Your eyes just glazed over when you read that paper, didn't they?

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
You can't imagine how a universe could be designed and engineered to exist by a transcendent agent of enormous power there for naturedidit.

Nonsense. I can imagine it just fine. Just no fucking evidence for it.

The reason you can imagine it just fine is because intelligent designing and engineering is a known observed repeatable process for complex mechanisms to occur. As thinking sentient human beings we are able to create things of phenomenal complexity. We don't have to leave it to our imagination we observe it all the time. As I pointed out before, as thinking sentient beings we can also produce 'virtual' universes where we can write the laws of physics and observe what happens (or doesn't happen) under such conditions.
There's no evidence that it happened in the case of our universe, life, or the origin of our own sentience and intelligence, you pompous ass. I thought that was clear, but apparently I was wrong.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Moralnihilist

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 03:55:54 PM
I am a drooling retard who can not tell the difference between real evidence and just shit I have pulled out of my ass. Even though it has been explained time and time again about what evidence actually is to my retarded ass, I will continue to attempt to tell you(my intellectual betters) what evidence is.

And now for the coup de gras, I will spout out a meaningless word salad. I shall use words that I believe to be large and impressive(remember I am a retard) and hope that I can somehow form a coherent sentence. Because of course if I in my infinite retardedness can't understand something it must mean that my skydaddy must exist.

And In a prime example of how I shall continue to move the goal posts, I shall now change my argument from stuff exists therefore god. To quantum physics spookiness=god.


Look you drooling piece of shit, as I have told you we favor intellectual honesty over your bullshit. Intellectual honesty allows us to admit when we don't know something. What you are doing is nothing more than a god of the gaps argument supplemented by a first cause fallacy and modified again with a irreducible complexity fallacy. You are doing nothing but making yourself look like a fucking drooling retard. You claimed in the unmodified quote to be willing to leave us. Then do yourself a favor(as well as us) and fuck off and go play in traffic. A moronic retard like yourself does not need to be in the gene pool.
Science doesn't give a damn about religions, because "damns" are not measurable units and therefore have no place in research. As soon as it's possible to detect damns, we'll quantize perdition and number all the levels of hell. Until then, science doesn't care.

DrewM

QuoteThat's your problem. See, a logical person (atheist or theist or anyone else) would conclude that evidence is defined as:
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

A fact is defined as:
A thing that is indisputably the case.
Indisputably is defined as:
Incontestable: not open to question; obviously true.
Are you honestly saying you have provided such evidence? Or, are you providing evidence solely based upon what you believe is true which is based on a book or ideas most of which is unverifiable?
I think the latter, definitely not the former.

A little philosophy (according to me)
The truth is something that is so whether some all or none believe it. In our attempts to determine the truth of a matter we have several degrees of certitude. Arguably the highest level of certitude is when something is established as a scientific fact. This is usually accomplished over a long period of time when several scientists assess it usually by experimental confirmation. In some instances scientific validation isn't possible. For example in the case of accusing someone of murder. Though many aspects of such a trial may have scientific facts submitted as evidence it would be rare if ever someones conviction is established as a scientific fact. In that case the standard of truth invoked is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is deemed innocent unless that criteria is met. In a civil dispute a mere preponderance of evidence (in the eyes of impartial folks) suffices. I don't think either side of our dispute can prove it scientifically or beyond a reasonable doubt at least not with the available information. There are no witnesses. When a judge or jury render a verdict, they render an opinion not a fact.

The problem with most theist/atheist debates is they submit theories in favor of their theory God doesn't or does exist. I wanted for the sake of this discussion limit evidence to accepted indisputable  facts, then argue from those facts. Facts aren't proof but if a fact tends to support a contention then it will be submitted as valid evidence. For many atheists the rock hard core foundation of their justification for claiming God doesn't exist is the claim there is no evidence in favor of God's existence. For many, this is not negotiable, its a dogmatic truth that there is no evidence that comports with the belief in the existence of God. Facts alone don't prove the truth of a matter. For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is unquestionably evidence of murder...but its not proof. Maybe someone stuck the knife in after the person was already dead. Even if it's discovered that in fact the knife was stuck in after death, the knife in the back is still valid evidence. A classic example is the Jon Bennet case (for those of us who remember). In that case there was very compelling evidence the parents committed the murder, but there was also compelling evidence an intruder committed the crime.

I've submitted three facts into evidence thus far.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. the fact sentient life exists

I have argued from those facts why they favor the existence of a Creator as opposed to the counter belief that we owe our existence to mindless forces that fortuitously caused our existence. Of course I don't have a snow balls chance in hell of winning the case for theism in an atheist court. The best I can hope for is that some will acknowledge there are valid reasons to subscribe to the belief. 

Moralnihilist

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 08:16:53 PM
A little philosophy (according to me)
The truth is something that is so whether some all or none believe it. In our attempts to determine the truth of a matter we have several degrees of certitude. Arguably the highest level of certitude is when something is established as a scientific fact. This is usually accomplished over a long period of time when several scientists assess it usually by experimental confirmation. In some instances scientific validation isn't possible. For example in the case of accusing someone of murder. Though many aspects of such a trial may have scientific facts submitted as evidence it would be rare if ever someones conviction is established as a scientific fact. In that case the standard of truth invoked is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is deemed innocent unless that criteria is met. In a civil dispute a mere preponderance of evidence (in the eyes of impartial folks) suffices. I don't think either side of our dispute can prove it scientifically or beyond a reasonable doubt at least not with the available information. There are no witnesses. When a judge or jury render a verdict, they render an opinion not a fact.

The problem with most theist/atheist debates is they submit theories in favor of their theory God doesn't or does exist. I wanted for the sake of this discussion limit evidence to accepted indisputable  facts, then argue from those facts. Facts aren't proof but if a fact tends to support a contention then it will be submitted as valid evidence. For many atheists the rock hard core foundation of their justification for claiming God doesn't exist is the claim there is no evidence in favor of God's existence. For many, this is not negotiable, its a dogmatic truth that there is no evidence that comports with the belief in the existence of God. Facts alone don't prove the truth of a matter. For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is unquestionably evidence of murder...but its not proof. Maybe someone stuck the knife in after the person was already dead. Even if it's discovered that in fact the knife was stuck in after death, the knife in the back is still valid evidence. A classic example is the Jon Bennet case (for those of us who remember). In that case there was very compelling evidence the parents committed the murder, but there was also compelling evidence an intruder committed the crime.

I've submitted three facts into evidence thus far.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. the fact sentient life exists

I have argued from those facts why they favor the existence of a Creator as opposed to the counter belief that we owe our existence to mindless forces that fortuitously caused our existence. Of course I don't have a snow balls chance in hell of winning the case for theism in an atheist court. The best I can hope for is that some will acknowledge there are valid reasons to subscribe to the belief. 

Wait so your argument is now back to stuff exists so therefore god?
And this is the argument that you expected someone here to "some will acknowledge there are valid reasons to subscribe to the belief."?


And you wonder why I keep calling you retarded.
Science doesn't give a damn about religions, because "damns" are not measurable units and therefore have no place in research. As soon as it's possible to detect damns, we'll quantize perdition and number all the levels of hell. Until then, science doesn't care.

leo

Drew why the hell you are here shitting our carpet ?
Religion is Bullshit  . The winner of the last person to post wins thread .

Shol'va

DrewM, have you yet demonstrated that the existence of life and the universe categorically cannot come from natural, mindless processes?

frosty

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 08:16:53 PM
I have argued from those facts why they favor the existence of a Creator as opposed to the counter belief that we owe our existence to mindless forces that fortuitously caused our existence. Of course I don't have a snow balls chance in hell of winning the case for theism in an atheist court. The best I can hope for is that some will acknowledge there are valid reasons to subscribe to the belief. 

But you speak about opinions quite a bit. Would you be willing to accept that perhaps your ideas are just your own opinions and do not accurately portray reality as it is? The way you answer this question of mine will prove many things, in one direction or the other.

Solitary

If there is something "supernatural" how can anyone that is in the "natural" world know anything about it?  This is what theism is, a supernatural world, just like the world of Casper the ghost. How does one know he isn't God? This is really a stupid thread, fit for a six year old child that believes in Santa. Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

leo

The  veredict of this thread is that Yahveh or Alah and other creators gods  don't exists. Nice way  to present the case DrewM. This is  a failure of epic proportions.
Religion is Bullshit  . The winner of the last person to post wins thread .

Johan

#179
Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 08:16:53 PM
I've submitted three facts into evidence thus far.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. the fact sentient life exists

I have argued from those facts why they favor the existence of a Creator as opposed to the counter belief that we owe our existence to mindless forces that fortuitously caused our existence.
You claim that you've argued from those facts. But so far  your only argument that these facts alone support the existence of a creator is because you think they do. Since you seem to be so in love with (incorrectly) using the standard of evidence in a hypothetical murder as your example, lets try this.

Lets say you're prosecuting this hypothetical murder case. You present evidence of a body to the jury and argue that because there is a body, there has been a murder (you've made this claim in this thread). Then you argue that because a knife was found in the body, there was definitely a murder (again, you've said this). Finally you argue that the murderer was the victims wife and the reason you believe it was victims wife is because you think so.

What are the odds the jury is going to convict the wife based only on your 'because I think so' argument?
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful