Author Topic: The Case for Theism  (Read 15201 times)

Re: The Case for Theism
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2014, 09:41:13 AM »
Why is there a God? Who created Him? Mankind did with their magical Neanderthal thinking and ignorance thinking they have knowledge. Solitary 
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline DrewM (OP)

Re: The Case for Theism
« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2014, 11:43:29 AM »
Stromboli,

Sean Carrol, Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, all highly regarded Particle physicists, have devised mathematical models that show the universe could come into existence without a creator. Try again.

I wrote in the OP...

Quote
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.

Besides that I don't deny its 'possible' we owe the existence of the universe and ourselves to mindless forces that didn't intend to create a universe or us. I should mention, I'm not submitting my case for the approval of my adversaries in this debate. Whether the case I make has merit is decided by the undecided, not those debating me.

Hello Annelid,

Quote
I should probably expand on my previous post. Not that I expect you to listen, I don't, but just so I can say I made the effort.

I appreciate your making the effort and your picture is funny.

Quote
So your argument and evidence essentially comes down to we exist therefore god. Its an oldie but a goodie that's been trotted out by a long line of theists before you. It goes without saying that your 'evidence' is not evidence but again, I don't for a moment expect you to listen.

Evidence is facts that comport with a belief. The existence of the universe comports with the belief God caused the universe to exist. Just as a dead body found with a bullet hole comports with the belief a murder was committed. Its hard to try a murder case without first established a murder has taken place.

Quote
Furthermore you state that athiests are wrong because in your mind its just simply impossible that the universe and everything in it came into existence just by random chance.

No not impossible at all. I've stated theism as an opinion and I have admitted I could be mistaken.

Quote
Again I know you're not going to listen but if writing this gets just one theist to sit down and try to actually understand the magnitude of the numbers involved, then my writing was not in vain.

I would be happy to hear what numbers, statistics or equations you refer to that might lead me to a different conclusion.

Hello Mollusk,

Quote
Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

If the universe is a simulator programmed by an intelligent being, that would be far closer to the theistic model of the universe than the mindless forces unintentionally caused a universe to exist without plan or intent, true?

Re: The Case for Theism
« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2014, 11:50:11 AM »
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.

You're fucking stupid.

Go away.

Re: The Case for Theism
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2014, 12:13:14 PM »
Evidence is facts that comport with a belief.


No. Evidence is the grounds for belief. Such as, your inability to express understanding for simple concepts is evidence that you are an idiot.

To call evidence something that comports with a belief is putting the cart before the horse. It's a great way to fall prey to the Forer effect. You accept the evidence that comports with your already existing belief and ignore evidence to the contrary.

This is what you do.

Because you are an idiot.

Go away.

Offline Nam

  • Unofficial Atheist Deity "Namgod"
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 1513
  • Total likes: 75
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
Re: The Case for Theism
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2014, 12:24:31 PM »
Long story short, you've got nothing. Next.

You read that? I couldn't get past the first line.

-Nam
Mad cow disease...it's not just for cows, or the mad!

Re: The Case for Theism
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2014, 12:25:38 PM »
You read that? I couldn't get past the first line.

-Nam

He is particularly boring for one of these turds.

Offline Nam

  • Unofficial Atheist Deity "Namgod"
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 1513
  • Total likes: 75
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
Re: The Case for Theism
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2014, 12:29:37 PM »
He is particularly boring for one of these turds.

As I state in his intro...I believe he's one of these New Age Christians™.

-Nam
Mad cow disease...it's not just for cows, or the mad!

Offline DrewM (OP)

Re: The Case for Theism
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2014, 12:30:06 PM »
Stromboli,

Quote
The existence of the universe does not "support" theism. The universe exists whether or not a god exists. You have to prove that
(A) there is a god and
(B) said god created the universe.

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?


Offline Nam

  • Unofficial Atheist Deity "Namgod"
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 1513
  • Total likes: 75
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
Re: The Case for Theism
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2014, 12:31:17 PM »
What evidence? You haven't provided any.

-Nam
Mad cow disease...it's not just for cows, or the mad!

Re: The Case for Theism
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2014, 12:37:32 PM »
Stromboli,

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?



Uh, no. You would need to provide evidence that GM exists first because that is the entity in question. You're doing it backwards and half-assed.

Go away.

Offline DrewM (OP)

Re: The Case for Theism
« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2014, 12:50:48 PM »
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?


Quote
Uh, no. You would need to provide evidence that GM exists first because that is the entity in question. You're doing it backwards and half-assed.

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.




Re: The Case for Theism
« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2014, 12:55:48 PM »
That is a bad analogy since a murder necessitates a dead body whereas a universe does not necessitate a god.

Offline AllPurposeAtheist

Re: The Case for Theism
« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2014, 12:58:46 PM »
Have you heard the infallible word of the tooth fairy? Lose teeth get money. ~amen
All hail my new signature!

Admit it. You're secretly green with envy.

Offline DrewM (OP)

Re: The Case for Theism
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2014, 01:10:38 PM »
Quote
That is a bad analogy since a murder necessitates a dead body whereas a universe does not necessitate a god.

Correct the existence of the universe alone doesn't necessitate the existence of God. Technically a dead body doesn't necessitate the occurrence of a murder (people die of natural causes).  However a dead body is nevertheless the first line of evidence a murder has taken place. If the universe didn't exist there would be nothing to attribute the existence of God to.

Re: The Case for Theism
« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2014, 01:14:23 PM »
Stromboli,

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?



Your fucking opinion doesn't count, dumbass. And it is not proof.

And back to the other reply. The fact that anyone, theoretically or otherwise, can postulate a model wherein a god is not required, means that you in turn would have to, theoretically or otherwise, postulate a situation wherein only god and no other method or way could produce the universe. You can't do that. You can't do anything but, in your own words, offer an opinion. Opinion is not proof.

You got nothing, seriously. You are the lamest excuse for a theist we've had here for a while. And you don't set the fucking ground rules for how we argue on the forum.