Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-07-2015, 03:36 PM
Why I'm a Theist
Greetings all,

I'm a secular theist. I'm not involved in any organized religion nor am I promoting any religion or religious belief. I am a theist because I believe the preponderance of available evidence leads to that conclusion. The word preponderance simply means more evidence in favor of than against. However its not just the evidence in favor of theism that leads to my opinion, its also the lack of evidence in favor of the counter position that we owe our existence and the universe to mindless forces that somehow came into existence and proceeded to cause a universe and life to exist. Whether atheists wish to defend the counter claim or not the theist-atheist debate is about two propositions; We owe the existence of the universe and life to a Creator or we owe our existence to mindless forces that somehow came into existence and caused all we observe.

First, I'm not claiming theism is a fact, it's an opinion. Its what I believe is true minus conclusive proof that would make it a fact. Therefore my 'burden' of evidence is a mere preponderance more in favor than against. Secondly I don't care if the case I make persuades the atheists on this board. Barring irrefutable evidence God exists the majority of atheists will say at the end of this thread I didn't make a case, there is no evidence in favor of theism and all the usual rhetoric and bellyaching. The only opinion that matters are those who are undecided.

The case for theism is circumstantial. The following is from a legal dictionary.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...l+Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

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 5 indisputable facts that support 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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes drewpaul's post
23-07-2015, 03:44 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Welcome to the forum.

I don't want to presuppose...but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anything you post, has been addressed and disputed ad nauseum. There has not been any new arguments or evidence about the existence of a god that does not lead to some sort of logical fallacy.

Best of luck though!

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Tonechaser77's post
23-07-2015, 03:44 PM
Why I'm a Theist
Does atheism make a claim in its rejection of theistic claims?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
23-07-2015, 03:47 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Welcome. I believe FSM put you here to test my patience. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 12 users Like jennybee's post
23-07-2015, 04:00 PM
Why I'm a Theist
Bless your noodley heart

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
23-07-2015, 04:06 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(23-07-2015 03:44 PM)Tonechaser77 Wrote:  Welcome to the forum.

I don't want to presuppose...but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that anything you post, has been addressed and disputed ad nauseum. There has not been any new arguments or evidence about the existence of a god that does not lead to some sort of logical fallacy.

Best of luck though!

An opinion on any matter can be disputed just on the basis that its an opinion and not irrefutable fact. If either position were indisputable fact we'd find something better to argue about and only the cranks would be left to debate it. I view atheists as the loyal opposition and I assume not a single atheist will be convinced or persuaded by this thread. Hopefully they're some undecided lurkers in this forum and they can decide for themselves the merit of this debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2015, 04:10 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(23-07-2015 03:36 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Greetings all,

I'm a secular theist. I'm not involved in any organized religion nor am I promoting any religion or religious belief. I am a theist because I believe the preponderance of available evidence leads to that conclusion. The word preponderance simply means more evidence in favor of than against. However its not just the evidence in favor of theism that leads to my opinion, its also the lack of evidence in favor of the counter position that we owe our existence and the universe to mindless forces that somehow came into existence and proceeded to cause a universe and life to exist. Whether atheists wish to defend the counter claim or not the theist-atheist debate is about two propositions; We owe the existence of the universe and life to a Creator or we owe our existence to mindless forces that somehow came into existence and caused all we observe.

First, I'm not claiming theism is a fact, it's an opinion. Its what I believe is true minus conclusive proof that would make it a fact. Therefore my 'burden' of evidence is a mere preponderance more in favor than against. Secondly I don't care if the case I make persuades the atheists on this board. Barring irrefutable evidence God exists the majority of atheists will say at the end of this thread I didn't make a case, there is no evidence in favor of theism and all the usual rhetoric and bellyaching. The only opinion that matters are those who are undecided.

The case for theism is circumstantial. The following is from a legal dictionary.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...l+Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.

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 5 indisputable facts that support 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.

So your god is a ''gap filler" / "place-holder'', in the absence of a better explanation, and not a relationship with a deity.

I don't think you ARE a theist.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-07-2015, 04:18 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(23-07-2015 04:06 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  An opinion on any matter can be disputed just on the basis that its an opinion and not irrefutable fact. If either position were indisputable fact we'd find something better to argue about and only the cranks would be left to debate it. I view atheists as the loyal opposition and I assume not a single atheist will be convinced or persuaded by this thread. Hopefully they're some undecided lurkers in this forum and they can decide for themselves the merit of this debate.

Should you find yourself over run with people and replies, you might want to pick a person to debate and go to the Colosseum section. There you can debate one on one in the boxing ring.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
23-07-2015, 04:37 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Let's start with this, provide evidence that is falsifiable and does not rely on interpretation. Evidence where the ONLY explanation would be your god concept.

Otherwise.......

[Image: well-good-luck-spongebob-120649787861.jpeg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheInquisition's post
23-07-2015, 04:59 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
First I want to debunk one of the most popular myths of atheism. The belief accepted as fact that there is no evidence in favor of theism. This belief is sacrosanct to atheists because if atheists were to admit there is evidence (facts) that comport with theism that would elevate theism to an intellectual belief and most atheists will have none of that. Atheist seek to marginalize theism as a faith proposition only without any basis in fact. Therefore no matter what lines of evidence I present atheists will dispute that any evidence has been submitted. So be it.

If there was no universe, no life, no laws of physics, stars, planets or galaxies the claim there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true. If somehow we could have this discussion (even though we wouldn't be around) I could say I think a Creator of the universe and life exists the atheists would rightly point out that no universe or life exists so your claim of a Creator is baseless. That alone wouldn't rule out the possibility a Creator who hasn't yet created the universe or life might exist but in lieu of anything to attribute to such a Creator they'd have ample reason to decline such a belief. Suppose a universe existed but unlike the universe we observe it was total complete and utter chaos with no laws of physics, no stars galaxies or planets and I said I think an intelligent Creator caused this universe to exist. Again atheists would question why I think an utterly chaotic universe with no discernible purpose would be created by an intelligent Creator. I could say it just seems that way to me but I still wouldn't have any real evidence an intelligent designer is necessary. After all a utterly chaotic universe is exactly what we would expect from something caused by mindless forces. What if there wasn't only a universe but one which appeared to have rules of behavior imposed on it so that it caused stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets to exist. I'd have at least a factual basis to conjecture that an engineer of some sort was involved. The loyal opposition would then point out why would an engineer create a universe with no purpose? Just planets and stars running around. What if the universe not only had stars and planets but also had sentient life? The slogan there is no evidence in favor of theism is just that... a baseless slogan.

In a murder case one of the first lines of evidence a lawyer will produce is a corpse. Although cases have been tried (and won) without one it sure helps. Just the fact of a corpse alone hardly means its murder or that a defendant is guilty and in a criminal case to get a conviction a lawyer must make a case that is beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless lawyers will submit a corpse as evidence a murder has occurred to lay a foundation. My first line of evidence is...

1. The fact the universe exists

There are certain facts that must be true for anyone to think 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 in fact 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. None of those facts needs 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 evidential reason to raise the existence of God. Additional lines of evidence soon to follow...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: