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

Onniyakuza

I can not imagine what I would have come across, but it was good.

Cavebear

Oh great, another lecturing theist.  Just what we needed...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Blackleaf

Quote from: Onniyakuza on September 14, 2017, 03:33:18 AM
I can not imagine what I would have come across, but it was good.

Welcome, new guy. Please introduce yourself in the Introductions sub-forum.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Unbeliever

Quote from: Onniyakuza on September 14, 2017, 03:33:18 AM
I can not imagine what I would have come across, but it was good.


God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Cavebear

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 14, 2017, 04:42:08 PM



Makes me almost want to look back at my first posts and hope to not cringe.  Almost...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

phetaroi

Quote from: DrewM on June 27, 2014, 11:53:22 PM
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).

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

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.

From Wikipedia

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directlyâ€"i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).


From free dictionary.com

One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence.

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.

Before I present my first line of evidence let me state what is not evidence. Theories (whether scientific or not) are not facts and so are not evidence. 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. I won’t bother refuting theories offered in support of the theory God doesn’t exist.

1. The fact the universe exists

that might seem like a paltry fact in support of theism. Suppose I was trying a case for murder, the first line of evidence I would produce is a dead body. After all, I couldn't accuse anyone of murder if there was no one deceased. If the universe didn't exist there would be no reason to invoke the existence of God. Moreover if a universe didn't exist there would be as atheists often claim no evidence God exists. In order for anyone to even think God exists a place for humans to exist must exist. There are certain facts that must be true for anyone to opine God exists. For humans to have any reason to think God might exist, we must have a place that allows us to live. There are several facts and conditions that must be true in order for there to be any reason to think the existence of a Creator is true. No facts need to be true for atheism to be true. Atheism doesn't require the existence of a universe to believe atheism is true. If the universe didn't exist atheism might still be false (God might exist but not have created the universe) but there would be no evidentiary reason to raise the existence of God. Additional lines of evidence soon to follow...

That's a lot of very nice writing without any evidence.  I'm sorry, you're just not making a real case for theism.

Blackleaf

Quote from: phetaroi on September 15, 2017, 12:15:19 AM
That's a lot of very nice writing without any evidence.  I'm sorry, you're just not making a real case for theism.

"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Cavebear

Quote from: phetaroi on September 15, 2017, 12:15:19 AM
That's a lot of very nice writing without any evidence.  I'm sorry, you're just not making a real case for theism.
Congrats, you are much like Ibn.  Long rambling post going no where in support of a belief you cannot defend.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

sdelsolray

I strongly suspect DrewM (the banned OP of this thread) is current member Drew_2017.

Drew_2017

Quote from: sdelsolray on September 30, 2017, 02:15:02 PM
I strongly suspect DrewM (the banned OP of this thread) is current member Drew_2017.

That was me several years ago. I didn't recall being banned from this board, if I was being deceptive I would have used a completely different name. If management elects to ban me again so be it but I don't recall breaking any rules then or now...
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Hydra009

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 03:40:17 PM
That was me several years ago. I didn't recall being banned from this board, if I was being deceptive I would have used a completely different name. If management elects to ban me again so be it but I don't recall breaking any rules then or now...
You know we have a rule against sock accounts, right?  You most certainly have broken at least one rule here.

Blackleaf

Quote from: Hydra009 on September 30, 2017, 03:52:01 PM
You know we have a rule against sock accounts, right?  You most certainly have broken at least one rule here.

I don't think either qualify as sock accounts. And it's been years. I think a second chance is reasonable.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Cavebear

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 30, 2017, 11:51:08 PM
I don't think either qualify as sock accounts. And it's been years. I think a second chance is reasonable.

He is the the same as before.  Second chances count only when the person changes.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

St Truth

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 30, 2017, 11:51:08 PM
I don't think either qualify as sock accounts. And it's been years. I think a second chance is reasonable.

If anything, Drew should be banned for ignoring arguments that he can't address. I have shown in another thread why he's totally wrong in his arguments but he just ignores what I say and continue to peddle his falsehood in favour of theism. I am now in two minds as to what Drew really is - a moronic dumbbell who cannot understand simple arguments or a dishonest liar who is hellbent on defending his god of the gaps. I have shown him why he is doing precisely that.

In one post, he argues that thunder is evidence for Thor, the thunder God. Now, he is arguing that the existence of the universe is evidence for God's existence. Conversely, he tries to show that atheists claim that natural forces brought the universe to existence  Atheists can't prove it's natural forces that caused the universe, neither can he prove that God created the universe. Hence the onus of proof should not be on the theist since atheists claim the universe is formed by natural forces.

I have answered him that this is rubbish. Atheists do not say that the universe is formed by natural forces. The Big Bang theory if it is to be accepted states that there is nothing beyond the Big Bang. It's a singularity that has nothing before it. You can't even speak of a time 'before' the Big Bang because there was nothing, not even time. So, the atheist really doesn't know if there is a cause for the Big Bang in the first place.

What Drew is doing is precisely what cavemen did when they said Thor was the cause of thunder. It is the god of the gaps argument again.

Because atheists are not saying that natural forces caused the Big Bang and theists are saying that God caused the Big Bang, you can't say that the onus of proof is on the atheist to show that natural forces didn't cause the Big Bang. Atheists do not say that in the first place. If you don't assert something, it's not for you to prove the existence of that which you have not asserted. But theists are asserting that God created the universe. In fact, for Drew and other theists like him, the existence of the universe is evidence for God. Because he asserts that God created the universe, he must prove the existence of God, following the simple rule that the person who asserts the existence of something has to show that it exists.

But Drew ignores all this and continues to peddle his theistic wares. I think he is a theistic troll. He has tried to lubricate his God with KY Gel in order to insert God into the gaps of human knowledge and i have called him out on that one. And yet he just goes to another post and repeats his imbecile garbage all over again.

I think if he does not want to address my points, he should be banned. Is AF a place for theists to ignore arguments and continue trumpeting their theistic garbage? He is a coward and a fool and a liar. It's obvious he is a banned person and I suggest that we get him and his lubricated God out. I don't see a need for a liar, a fool and a coward to remain in a forum that should not waste its time on theistic loonies. I don't want to see another CF in AF and it's imbeciles like Drew who when defeated in one post, ignores the post and repeats his flawed argument in another post or another thread. This is the kind of theistic cancer an enlightened intelligent crowd should have nothing to do with. Of course he is the dishonest person who was banned but sneaks it again with his lubricated God.

Ban the dishonest moron!

St Truth

Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 01:12:56 AM
He is the the same as before.  Second chances count only when the person changes.

He has not changed one bit. He ignores cogent argument and he lies that I have lost when he refused to address my points. He is no different from a peddling preacher. He is dishonest, lies about not being the banned person when he obviously is and all he wants is to spread theistic nonsense in the hope of converting intelligent people to his dumb belief. Ban the fool, I say.