Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-07-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 03:04 PM)TheMrBillShow Wrote:  Could I see some evidence of a god/creator's existence that doesn't involve an argument from ignorance or represent a shifting of the burden of proof? Just one bit? Please?


BUT THERE CAN BE NO OTHER EXPLANATION!! IT HAS TO BE A MAGIC MAN IN THE SKY!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2015, 03:29 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 03:26 PM)TheStraightener Wrote:  
(25-07-2015 03:04 PM)TheMrBillShow Wrote:  Could I see some evidence of a god/creator's existence that doesn't involve an argument from ignorance or represent a shifting of the burden of proof? Just one bit? Please?


BUT THERE CAN BE NO OTHER EXPLANATION!! IT HAS TO BE A MAGIC MAN IN THE SKY!



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jennybee's post
25-07-2015, 03:34 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 03:04 PM)TheMrBillShow Wrote:  Could I see some evidence of a god/creator's existence that doesn't involve an argument from ignorance or represent a shifting of the burden of proof? Just one bit? Please?

Hey! No cutting in line! There are millions of us who've been waiting a long time for that. Angry

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-07-2015, 03:39 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 03:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-07-2015 03:04 PM)TheMrBillShow Wrote:  Could I see some evidence of a god/creator's existence that doesn't involve an argument from ignorance or represent a shifting of the burden of proof? Just one bit? Please?

Hey! No cutting in line! There are millions of us who've been waiting a long time for that. Angry

The only sign that this perverse and foolish generation will be given is the sign of Jonah. i.e. some guy got et by a fish, sicked up fuck-knows-where, went to Nineveh, sat under a tree, got pissed 'cos his deity didn't do what he wanted (kill everyone) aaaand... the end. That's why you should believe in Christianity.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2015, 03:47 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 03:29 PM)jennybee Wrote:  
(25-07-2015 03:26 PM)TheStraightener Wrote:  BUT THERE CAN BE NO OTHER EXPLANATION!! IT HAS TO BE A MAGIC MAN IN THE SKY!







#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
25-07-2015, 03:57 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 12:51 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Fine, is a dictionary a valid source to define a word?

Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

What dictionary did you get this out of? I check my personal Webster, Google, and Dictionary.com and they all only say.

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

(25-07-2015 12:51 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Irregardless of how you define atheism the upshot is if atheism is true we owe the existence of the universe and life to mindless forces that didn't intend life or the universe to exist. Or do you lack belief in that claim as well? We can compare that to whether the universe and life was caused intentionally by a personal intelligent agent commonly referred to as God.

My atheism is the result from lack up tangible evidence refuting this position from the opposing party's.

If mindless forces were the result (which has been demonstrated to me with sufficient evidence thus far) these forces ask from nothing in return. Because these forces don't require, or comprehend these events to happen. We don't owe them anything, because no debt is required.

If we compared this to whatever deity you came up with. (I asked some questions in a past post that i didn't get a response to so i'm winging it here.) I did not ask for this life. (thou there are some parts I enjoy) But I am being demanded to pay a debt that i don't know what I owe.

I would imagine it being as if you where pushed into a mad man's basement. You find everything you require, food water, shelter. You also find other people in this basement that have been there just as or longer then you. Some say the mad man demands a debt be paid. But when you shout up the vents no respsonce is returned. The other people in the basement come up with what must be required maybe not eating meals for a month. Maybe he wants them to kill the baby's. But when ever these acts are done nothing changes. Still no response from the man upstairs.

What debt could ever be repaid in full? Why must I pay for events that where out of my control?

(25-07-2015 12:51 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  I'm not making any claims about the nature of God, that's for theologians to do.

But you are, in a way. You've made clams that a debt must be owed. Which would imply that you know what this being is thinking. That is wants to be repayed. And that it has desires, or fulfillment's that it requires.

You also have said that it must exsit because things exist. (Universe, life, trees, you/me) So with this clam you are saying it is capable of creating things from whatever it wants.

(25-07-2015 12:51 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  The only known repeatable observable source of life and sentience is life and sentience. Its alleged by atheists that life and sentience arose from non-life and non-sentience.

I've meet atheists that said life came from Aliens. The origins of life are still being studied. Thou I hear we are getting closer.

http://www.livescience.com/51106-origin-...found.html

But (again i'm assuming you pushing the christian god) people that belive in gods often adhere to specific ones. For example when I was a theist I leaned more to the Christian God because it's the one I knew best from being raised Catholic. Towards the end of my Thiesim I created a almost poly-morphed god. One that was like the Yawah but was nicer, and more personal. He didn't want anything but for me to acknowledge him. His powers were limited.

But in exodus it makes just that clam that life came from none life. Clay turned into a full functional human body. Rib turned into a fully functional human body. A snap of the fingers and everything else popped into being.

And this gose across the board. Hindu's it's Lotis leaves, in Nordic it's fire and ice. What science is doing is figuring out the exact chemical combos that can produce the simplest of simple life forms. Not full complex beings from objects that have no correlation.

(25-07-2015 12:51 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  The fact of our existence and the existence of the universe is an extraordinary event it shouldn't be surprising an extraordinary explanation is in order. From our frame of reference a transcendent being would be considered magical just as I mentioned our technology of today would appear magical to folks from 200 years ago. But you don't consider today's technology to be magical correct?

Here's another clam to the nature of the god you pushing. You saying he need devises to carry out his will. And ruled out it's magical. And your making the clam it's a much more "evolved" then us. But I still don't have a demonstration of this or it's abiltes.

(25-07-2015 12:51 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  I'm appealing to facts we do know. Of the 5 facts I cited in favor of theism not one atheist has denied they are facts. If new facts come to life shouldn't that be reason for me to re-evaluate my claim?

I'll have to go back later and look at what was asked.

In the mean time let me ask you 5 questions.

Can you name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever?

Why did you pick this god, over another?

Can you think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?

What is your goal?

WHAT! Is your Favorite COLOR?

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Commonsensei's post
25-07-2015, 04:07 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Yeahbut:

[Image: moGNJLm.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
25-07-2015, 04:25 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 02:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-07-2015 12:51 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  I'm appealing to facts we do know. Of the 5 facts I cited in favor of theism not one atheist has denied they are facts. If new facts come to life shouldn't that be reason for me to re-evaluate my claim?

They may be facts, but they are not evidence.
You are offering your interpretations and opinions as evidence, and that is the problem.

That's not a problem, that is what is done in a court case or in a debate. Both pleaders lay out facts (that are deemed relevant and probative) then argue (offer opinion and interpretations) from those facts. Its up to the triers of fact to determine who makes the better case. The problem in a forum like this atheists masquerade as impartial objective reviewers of fact and qualified to render a fair verdict by pretending they only 'lack belief'. But they always let the cat out of the bag because eventually they start arguing what they really believe that God doesn't exist, that such belief is akin to belief in fairies and magic and so forth and that all phenomena can be explained naturalistically. I think even you would agree once someone starts making a case for their preferred explanation, they're no longer passive skeptics of a claim true?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2015, 04:37 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 04:25 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  The problem in a forum like this atheists masquerade as impartial objective reviewers of fact and qualified to render a fair verdict by pretending they only 'lack belief'. But they always let the cat out of the bag because eventually they start arguing what they really believe that God doesn't exist, that such belief is akin to belief in fairies and magic and so forth and that all phenomena can be explained naturalistically. I think even you would agree once someone starts making a case for their preferred explanation, they're no longer passive skeptics of a claim true?

WHEEEEEEEET! Penalty on the play...

[Image: argument_ergo_decido_zpsmocvtr2r.jpg]

... Fifteen Yards, repeat First Down.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2015, 04:38 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(25-07-2015 02:31 PM)jennybee Wrote:  Here are 5 "facts" about leprechauns: (Does that mean they exist?)

1. Lucky Charms mascot.
2. They typically wear green clothes.
3. They hide a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
4. According to Wiki--they live in the forest or garden.
5. They engage in mischief.

Let me ask you...do you lack belief in leprechauns or do you disbelieve in leprechauns? Since this thread is already 21 pages deep I will re-post the OP.

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.





Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: