Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-08-2015, 08:10 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 08:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-08-2015 08:33 AM)Free Wrote:  But directly to the point, nothing exists to us until we have discovered it. It is irrelevant whether or not it exists outside of our knowledge.

That seems too strong a statement. It partly depends on what you mean by "outside our knowledge".

Basically all I am saying is so very simple. I am speaking directly to the human experience. Nothing exists to us until we discover it. In relation to that, it doesn't matter what exists outside our knowledge, for if we have not detected it, then still it doesn't exist to us.

Quote:We can infer the existence of things by their effects. Does that make them known to us?

It makes them possible for a certainty, and even a likelihood. But until we have directly observed them, we cannot claim existence with 100% certainty.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 08:13 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 01:38 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Closing Argument

The theism atheism debate is about two propositions; we owe the existence of the universe and sentient life to natural forces that didn’t intend to cause a universe or life to exist or we owe our existence to a Creator that intentionally caused the universe and life to exist. Either claim is extraordinary but the existence of the universe and sentient life is an extraordinary event. I cited 5 facts (also known as evidence) in support of my opinion and I will add a 6th.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact sentient life exists
4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6. The fact that sentient beings (humans) create virtual universes.

The last line of evidence provides a working model of theism. Granted we’re not capable of creating real universes but the existence of virtual universes is traceable back to sentient creators who can create and design any type of universe they want with whatever laws of physics they want. It demonstrates this is something sentient beings are inclined to do. If we were capable of populating virtual universes with virtual sentient beings they would undoubtedly wonder how their existence and the universe came to be and whether it was ‘natural forces’ all the way down or if there was an intelligence behind it all. All the arguments atheists make now would be just as valid in such a virtual universe but they’d all be wrong.

I have commented at length about atheism as a lack of belief (but not the disbelief) in the existence of God position and unwillingness to defend naturalism. As a result atheism becomes nothing more than a criticism of theism while admitting they have no competing model or better explanation of how mindless forces could have accomplished what we observe. It amounts to little more than saying ‘we don’t know how or if the universe came about by natural means but we’re skeptical of any theistic means’. That position is fine when having a debate on an atheist board I don’t think it will lose any atheists but before a group of impartial folks judging the merits of our respective arguments it’s a non-starter. I don’t evaluate the theist-atheist debate from a lack of belief standpoint I evaluate it from whether what we observe is best explained as the product of intellect or by product of natural forces and pure happenstance. Obviously I hold at this time the theistic theory has more merit. Some important discoveries could be made in my life time that would cause me to re-consider. No one here has mounted much of a defense of atheism because most here want to define it as a lack of belief.

That's all very interesting. Now explain where the creating sentience came from. I'll wait. Drinking Beverage

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
09-08-2015, 08:15 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 01:49 PM)Free Wrote:  
(09-08-2015 01:26 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Free,

I think you're confusing existence with knowledge of existence.

We don't need to have knowledge of a thing's existence in order for it to exist. The universe will continue to exist even after all humans cease to exist.

Uh-huh

Quote:You need to understand that we are human, and to us nothing exists until it is discovered as existing by humans.

I would find it very interesting to see anyone demonstrate existence with no human to observe it. You see, it's irrelevant what may or may not exist outside of the human experience, for without us, existence is meaningless.

Oh, what anthropocentric bullshit. I'm quite sure other self-aware creatures find existence meaningful.

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
09-08-2015, 08:17 PM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2015 08:24 PM by Free.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 08:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-08-2015 01:49 PM)Free Wrote:  Uh-huh


I would find it very interesting to see anyone demonstrate existence with no human to observe it. You see, it's irrelevant what may or may not exist outside of the human experience, for without us, existence is meaningless.

Oh, what anthropocentric bullshit. I'm quite sure other self-aware creatures find existence meaningful

Do you know that for a certainty? Or are you guessing based upon your human experience? Can you speak for other self-aware creatures?

We both know what your answers to these questions will be, and judging by your assumption regarding other self-aware creatures, it isn't me demonstrating the anthropocentric bullshit.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 08:20 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 02:02 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  
How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
Born This Way


Even a so called lack of belief of a claim is the result of a volitional intelligent decision (at least I would hope it is). Infants aren't capable of deciding which claims have merit and which don't. They don't disbelieve or lack belief in anything. I don't get how some think this is a good argument for atheism.

I don't see why anyone misunderstands this. Consider

Infants don't have beliefs about capitalism, ballet, stellar evolution, an many other things. They lack those beliefs.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Facepalm

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
09-08-2015, 08:25 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 02:28 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Free,

Quote:But that will not happen. No one in history has ever been able to demonstrate with evidence that any kind of supernatural god or creator even has any evidence at all to support the smallest possibility that they actually exist.

Obviously I beg to differ. I've offered evidence in favor of my conviction

No, you haven't. You have offered an argument based on your interpretations of facts.

Quote:and produced a model that demonstrates the plausibility of theism as an explanation for why a universe with sentient beings exists.

It might become plausible when you can explain the origin of that sentience.

Quote:Just because it doesn't convince a dyed-in the-wool atheist doesn't mean its not evidence and has no merit. I said in the first post that atheists often do a bait and switch, they ask for evidence of a claim which to them means proof and if I fail to provide irrefutable proof of my claim they will say I failed to provide evidence.

It has no merit as evidence.

Quote:What evidence do you have that mindless forces always existed, or caused themselves to exist and without plan, intent or an engineers degree caused a universe and something unlike itself to exist, life and sentience? Or do you lack belief in that claim also? Are folks born with a lack of belief we owe our existence to naturalistic causes? If so are we born 'a-naturalists'?

Now you've got it. I don't believe in any of the explanations of the origin of the universe. I simply weigh the strength of the evidence for each.

There is no evidence of a sentient creator.

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
09-08-2015, 08:44 PM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2015 10:00 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 01:38 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  The theism atheism debate is about two propositions; we owe the existence of the universe and sentient life to natural forces that didn’t intend to cause a universe or life to exist or we owe our existence to a Creator that intentionally caused the universe and life to exist. Either claim is extraordinary but the existence of the universe and sentient life is an extraordinary event. The last line of evidence provides a working model of theism. Granted we’re not capable of creating real universes but the existence of virtual universes is traceable back to sentient creators who can create and design any type of universe they want with whatever laws of physics they want. It demonstrates this is something sentient beings are inclined to do. If we were capable of populating virtual universes with virtual sentient beings they would undoubtedly wonder how their existence and the universe came to be and whether it was ‘natural forces’ all the way down or if there was an intelligence behind it all. All the arguments atheists make now would be just as valid in such a virtual universe but they’d all be wrong.

I have commented at length about atheism as a lack of belief (but not the disbelief) in the existence of God position and unwillingness to defend naturalism. As a result atheism becomes nothing more than a criticism of theism while admitting they have no competing model or better explanation of how mindless forces could have accomplished what we observe. It amounts to little more than saying ‘we don’t know how or if the universe came about by natural means but we’re skeptical of any theistic means’. That position is fine when having a debate on an atheist board I don’t think it will lose any atheists but before a group of impartial folks judging the I cited 5 facts (also known as evidence) in support of my opinion and I will add a 6th.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact sentient life exists
4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6. The fact that sentient beings (humans) create virtual universes.

merits of our respective arguments it’s a non-starter. I don’t evaluate the theist-atheist debate from a lack of belief standpoint I evaluate it from whether what we observe is best explained as the product of intellect or by product of natural forces and pure happenstance. Obviously I hold at this time the theistic theory has more merit. Some important discoveries could be made in my life time that would cause me to re-consider. No one here has mounted much of a defense of atheism because most here want to define it as a lack of belief.

No. Not at all. Completely false.
Actually that's NOT "the atheism/theism debate". It's YOUR framing of how YOU think you *need* to present it.
There is not a compelling paragraph in the entire set of posts. Not one. It's a giant fail.
It's hilarious this dude says he's presenting a closing argument when he hasn't even presented an opening one yet.

Quote:I cited 5 facts (also known as evidence) in support of my opinion and I will add a 6th.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. The fact sentient life exists
4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.
5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.
6. The fact that sentient beings (humans) create virtual universes.

Sorry to burst your little bubble, but facts are not necessarily evidence. Fact are not evidence, UNLESS there is a coherent theory that connects the facts with the proposition.
Your facts are not evidence of anything, except that you observe them, and that you *need* an explanation for them TODAY. Not one of those 6 are "evidence" that supports any pro or con argument for anything. At All. They are merely a set of six observations. The facts listed imply nothing further, either pro or con, except to a Presuppositionalist biased observer. He doesn't know what "evidence'' even is, or how to construct an argument.

Quote:Granted we’re not capable of creating real universes but the existence of virtual universes is traceable back to sentient creators who can create and design any type of universe they want with whatever laws of physics they want.

LMFAO. Show us ONE of these (real) "universes". If you can't, you have no point.
This is equivalent to saying that if I can cook up a fantasy science fiction world, it therefore means that someone can make one. HOW UTTERLY IDIOTIC. The existence of fantasy universes is "evidence" of nothing except that they can be imagined. The entire set of crap arguments are based on fantasy universes. Sadcryface2

No one has to mount anything until a coherent argument is made, (and it has not happened). He listed some observations, then claimed they were "evidence". This is one of THE stupidest set of posts ever perpetrated on TTA. He refused to answer any of the real definition questions asked of him, and kept up all along with the insulting patronizing "atheists this" and "atheists that" In fact he actually knows not one atheist IRL. I suspect this is a pre-freshman paper aimed at entrance to Biola, and someone has obviously indicated to him that this is a good argument.

He's a legend in his own mind.
There is no support from anyone he can present for this unique pile of dung, and in fact physicists have debunked the ID argument time and again. If a god had designed life and it's processes, it wouldn't be designed so piss poorly.
Weeping

What would one expect to see IF a sentient intelligent being created a universe, and put life in it ? You would NOT expect that for almost the ENTIRE length of time that universe existed, there will be no life at all in it. In the far distant future after all the stars have burned out, elementary particles have decayed into neutrinos and gamma rays, black holes will eventually evaporate by the Hawking process. The time for this process is huge, being about a 100 trillion octillion yotta-years, or 1 followed by 65 zeroes, for a 10 solar mass black hole, and a quintillion times longer than that for a 10 million solar mass black hole. 1 yotta-year is a trillion trillion years. Why would a sentient being waste a universe with those dimensions, for the purpose of putting life in it which will exist for virtually NO TIME at all in the entire span of it's existence. Pretty stupid deity, that. Clearly whatever it 'created' a universe like we see here for, it was NOT "for life".

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
09-08-2015, 08:53 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 08:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-08-2015 01:49 PM)Free Wrote:  Uh-huh


I would find it very interesting to see anyone demonstrate existence with no human to observe it. You see, it's irrelevant what may or may not exist outside of the human experience, for without us, existence is meaningless.

Oh, what anthropocentric bullshit. I'm quite sure other self-aware creatures find existence meaningful.

If I close my eyes, you will not exist. Weeping

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
09-08-2015, 09:12 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 08:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-08-2015 08:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, what anthropocentric bullshit. I'm quite sure other self-aware creatures find existence meaningful.

If I close my eyes, you will not exist. Weeping

Wish it was that easy to get rid of Ex's.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 09:53 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(09-08-2015 08:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What would one expect to see IF a sentient intelligent being created a universe, and put life in it. You would NOT expect that for almost the ENTIRE length of time that universe existed, there will be no life at all in it. In the far distant future after all the stars have burned out, elementary particles have decayed into neutrinos and gamma rays, black holes will eventually evaporate by the Hawking process. The time for this process is huge, being about a 100 trillion octillion yotta-years, or 1 followed by 65 zeroes, for a 10 solar mass black hole, and a quintillion times longer than that for a 10 million solar mass black hole. 1 yotta-year is a trillion trillion years. Why would a "sentience" waste a universe with those dimensions, for the purpose of putting life in it which will exist for virtually NO TIME at all. Clearly whatever it 'created' a universe like we see is, it was NOT for "life".

If this universe was created for anything, it seems it was for the creation of stars and black holes.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: