Arguments for theism without logical fallacies?

[Justin108]

Can ANY argument be made in support of theism that does not rely on a logical fallacy?


A few popular logical fallacies used to support theism include ad populum, appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, begging the question, false dilemma, false dichotomy, non-sequitur, special pleading, tautology, tu quoque, ad baculum, circular reasoning, confirmation bias, excluded middle, proving non-existence, etc.

[stubbornone]

They are not mine, they are the sources numbers. The burden is NOW upon you to disprove it ... not me.

This atheist idea that only other people have to think, examine, and solve is really quite off putting.

Yet, you used them. Please show that they have any validity, that the alleged educational you are providing has any basis in reality, or withdraw your claim. Show the source, and show that they know what the heck they are talking about... or are they just throwing big numbers out there that have no meaning?

It sounds to me that you are throwing big numbers out there that you have no concept of what they relate too, and then say 'PROVE IT WRONG'. This is the logical fallacy of 'Shifting the burden of Proof'. You make a claim and then say "Prove me wrong'. Wow, Such a lesson in logical fallacies.



Second challenge.

Because I find the reasoning behind them sound.

You have listed no reason for anyone to doubt them whatsoever ... other than the fact that math doesn't support your position, therefore it should be rejected?

The whole point of debate is to make a case, not ask others to make a case and then willfully ignore it for no particular reason.

Perhaps, instead of debate, you would do better with www.agreewitheverythingisay.com ?

[stubbornone]

Statistics - simple mathematics (can you get much more logical than that?)

Here is statistical zero - as in statistically impossible.

"1/1050
(1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
(0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001)
Statistical 0

That is a 1 in 10 x 50th power, chance ... at which point, mathematicians equate to zero probability.

Here is the statistical probability that the universe just randomly created itself.

1/10322
=
1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That is a 1 in 10 to the 322 power chance - well beyond the statistic threshold of impossibility.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

So your atheism, in order to reject a creator in the universe, must embrace the statistical impossibility.

There is a proof of a God. Not a single fallacy in it.

1. You seem to misunderstand my question. I am not asking for arguments AGAINST atheism (which this still isn't). I'm asking for arguments FOR theism. There is a difference. For one, even if it were impossible for the universe to exist at random doesn't therefor mean that a personal entity called god created it. An alternative to theism is deism and in the case where atheism is refuted, deism is still possible.

2. It is at best "highly inprobable" but I would argue that bringing a supernatural entity into the equation is not needed. The odds of winning the lottery is 1 in 14 million but a winner of the lottery need not attribute it to divine intervention.

3. The fact that the universe is infinite makes up for the mathematical improbability of chance. If you have a 6 sided dice, the odds of throwing 6 is 1/6. But if you had 6 chances to throw, then statistically you are very likely to throw 6 atleast once. Now the universe, being infinite, has an infinite number of throws. So the 1/10 to the 322 power dice is thrown over and over and over again for infinity until it lands on what is our universe today. For all we know, many different universes have existed before and this is only the billionth version or so? So no. It is not mathematically imporbable. It is very probable that in a universe with unfinite time, eventually the dice will land on our current state of being.

You asked for proof of God, and I am not sure why that doesn't count? (And yes, evidence that leads toward God is, be default, against atheism ... so your point is a quibble isn't it?)

The statistics indicate that it is far more likely that there is an element of design in a universe rather than random chance.

Let me put it to you this way, as a military gut I could point out to my boss that there are natural gas deposits out there, etc., and that these thing sometime blow up in way that add military value on a battlefield ... such as taking down a wall right when a breach is necessary. However, if I built a plan to breach an enemy obstacle belt based on random chance rather than the use of explosive breaches ... I would be fired.

Indeed, when coming across a battlefield and finding a series of deliberate breaches, these would indicate a pattern of intelligence and planning ... rather than just a happenstance of random explosions which just happened to be militarily significant. In short, evidence of a plan indicates that there was a planner -- be it a staff of a general.

The same goes for design. Elements that appear to indicate design appear to indicate a designer, a creator of creation.

Sure, its possible, though statistically its actually impossible, that universe just happened, but the reality is that the chances of it are FAR less likely than if there is a God/Creator being.

And its not fallacious. Its statistics.

Exactly what you asked for.

BTW - the fact is the universe is not infinite, it has a known start point called the Big Bang - it is therefore finite. Basically, you are now denying God by rejecting science.

[Divine Insight]

Can ANY argument be made in support of theism that does not rely on a logical fallacy?

It's my conclusion that such an argument can indeed be made.

However, that could potentially depend upon your precise definition of "theism".

If your definition of "theism" requires the existence of a conscious entity that is somehow totally separate from us in some way, then no, I wouldn't even bother to go there.

the·ism (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.



For the purpose of this debate, let's define theism as such. I do want to stress the criteria of "personal" to seperate it from deism. So whatever argument is being made for theism should be seperate to the arguments made for deism. An argument made for theism must include a reason to believe this entity is personal

Ok. I have to ask because everyone uses these terms quite differently.

For example I just looked up the term deism because I'm never sure how people are using that term either.

I got the following:

Deism - Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe.

So the main criteria in this thread between theism and deism appears to be a the difference between a supreme being who can potentially intervene (theism), versus one that either can't or simply doesn't intervene (deism).

Hmmm? That's interesting.

Actually my spiritual philosophies are somewhere in between these extremes. But that's a whole other story.

In short though, I will not argue for an egotistical intervening Godhead that exists outside of us, and the universe. And especially not for one that lusts to rule over anyone.

So if that's your criteria for theism, then nope, I can't help you with that one.

[Justin108]

Statistics - simple mathematics (can you get much more logical than that?)

Here is statistical zero - as in statistically impossible.

"1/1050
(1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
(0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001)
Statistical 0

That is a 1 in 10 x 50th power, chance ... at which point, mathematicians equate to zero probability.

Here is the statistical probability that the universe just randomly created itself.

1/10322
=
1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That is a 1 in 10 to the 322 power chance - well beyond the statistic threshold of impossibility.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

So your atheism, in order to reject a creator in the universe, must embrace the statistical impossibility.

There is a proof of a God. Not a single fallacy in it.

1. You seem to misunderstand my question. I am not asking for arguments AGAINST atheism (which this still isn't). I'm asking for arguments FOR theism. There is a difference. For one, even if it were impossible for the universe to exist at random doesn't therefor mean that a personal entity called god created it. An alternative to theism is deism and in the case where atheism is refuted, deism is still possible.

2. It is at best "highly inprobable" but I would argue that bringing a supernatural entity into the equation is not needed. The odds of winning the lottery is 1 in 14 million but a winner of the lottery need not attribute it to divine intervention.

3. The fact that the universe is infinite makes up for the mathematical improbability of chance. If you have a 6 sided dice, the odds of throwing 6 is 1/6. But if you had 6 chances to throw, then statistically you are very likely to throw 6 atleast once. Now the universe, being infinite, has an infinite number of throws. So the 1/10 to the 322 power dice is thrown over and over and over again for infinity until it lands on what is our universe today. For all we know, many different universes have existed before and this is only the billionth version or so? So no. It is not mathematically imporbable. It is very probable that in a universe with unfinite time, eventually the dice will land on our current state of being.

You asked for proof of God, and I am not sure why that doesn't count? (And yes, evidence that leads toward God is, be default, against atheism ... so your point is a quibble isn't it?)

The statistics indicate that it is far more likely that there is an element of design in a universe rather than random chance.

Let me put it to you this way, as a military gut I could point out to my boss that there are natural gas deposits out there, etc., and that these thing sometime blow up in way that add military value on a battlefield ... such as taking down a wall right when a breach is necessary. However, if I built a plan to breach an enemy obstacle belt based on random chance rather than the use of explosive breaches ... I would be fired.

Indeed, when coming across a battlefield and finding a series of deliberate breaches, these would indicate a pattern of intelligence and planning ... rather than just a happenstance of random explosions which just happened to be militarily significant. In short, evidence of a plan indicates that there was a planner -- be it a staff of a general.

The same goes for design. Elements that appear to indicate design appear to indicate a designer, a creator of creation.

Sure, its possible, though statistically its actually impossible, that universe just happened, but the reality is that the chances of it are FAR less likely than if there is a God/Creator being.

And its not fallacious. Its statistics.

Exactly what you asked for.

BTW - the fact is the universe is not infinite, it has a known start point called the Big Bang - it is therefore finite. Basically, you are now denying God by rejecting science.

Firstly, complexity does not indicate design. God is supposedly infinitely complex. Was he designed?

Secondly, the Big Bang is a theory. Not a proven fact. It is not fallacious to argue against scientific theories. And I wouldn't even have to argue against the Big Bang. My argument is that there may have been many Big Bangs before the one that created our universe. There is also a theory known as the Big Crunch which goes that eventually, all matter would revert to the state it was once in before the Big Bang. This would support my theory that the universe may have had many "tries" until it came to a universe containing life.

Hell I don't even have to argue for or against the infinite time of the universe. All I have to look at is the infinite size. How many planets do you suppose there are in the universe? It is very possible that there are more than 10 to the 322 power planets and so the odds of one of these containing life is therefor statistically probable.

Thirdly, you seemed to not have finished reading my first point as you haven't addressed the alternative of deism.

And lastly, this would still in extent be an argument from ignorance since you're basically saying "we don't know how the universe came to be so it must have come from God".

[stubbornone]

Statistics - simple mathematics (can you get much more logical than that?)

Here is statistical zero - as in statistically impossible.

"1/1050
(1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
(0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001)
Statistical 0

That is a 1 in 10 x 50th power, chance ... at which point, mathematicians equate to zero probability.

Here is the statistical probability that the universe just randomly created itself.

1/10322
=
1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That is a 1 in 10 to the 322 power chance - well beyond the statistic threshold of impossibility.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

So your atheism, in order to reject a creator in the universe, must embrace the statistical impossibility.

There is a proof of a God. Not a single fallacy in it.

1. You seem to misunderstand my question. I am not asking for arguments AGAINST atheism (which this still isn't). I'm asking for arguments FOR theism. There is a difference. For one, even if it were impossible for the universe to exist at random doesn't therefor mean that a personal entity called god created it. An alternative to theism is deism and in the case where atheism is refuted, deism is still possible.

2. It is at best "highly inprobable" but I would argue that bringing a supernatural entity into the equation is not needed. The odds of winning the lottery is 1 in 14 million but a winner of the lottery need not attribute it to divine intervention.

3. The fact that the universe is infinite makes up for the mathematical improbability of chance. If you have a 6 sided dice, the odds of throwing 6 is 1/6. But if you had 6 chances to throw, then statistically you are very likely to throw 6 atleast once. Now the universe, being infinite, has an infinite number of throws. So the 1/10 to the 322 power dice is thrown over and over and over again for infinity until it lands on what is our universe today. For all we know, many different universes have existed before and this is only the billionth version or so? So no. It is not mathematically imporbable. It is very probable that in a universe with unfinite time, eventually the dice will land on our current state of being.

You asked for proof of God, and I am not sure why that doesn't count? (And yes, evidence that leads toward God is, be default, against atheism ... so your point is a quibble isn't it?)

The statistics indicate that it is far more likely that there is an element of design in a universe rather than random chance.

Let me put it to you this way, as a military gut I could point out to my boss that there are natural gas deposits out there, etc., and that these thing sometime blow up in way that add military value on a battlefield ... such as taking down a wall right when a breach is necessary. However, if I built a plan to breach an enemy obstacle belt based on random chance rather than the use of explosive breaches ... I would be fired.

Indeed, when coming across a battlefield and finding a series of deliberate breaches, these would indicate a pattern of intelligence and planning ... rather than just a happenstance of random explosions which just happened to be militarily significant. In short, evidence of a plan indicates that there was a planner -- be it a staff of a general.

The same goes for design. Elements that appear to indicate design appear to indicate a designer, a creator of creation.

Sure, its possible, though statistically its actually impossible, that universe just happened, but the reality is that the chances of it are FAR less likely than if there is a God/Creator being.

And its not fallacious. Its statistics.

Exactly what you asked for.

BTW - the fact is the universe is not infinite, it has a known start point called the Big Bang - it is therefore finite. Basically, you are now denying God by rejecting science.

Firstly, complexity does not indicate design. God is supposedly infinitely complex. Was he designed?

Secondly, the Big Bang is a theory. Not a proven fact. It is not fallacious to argue against scientific theories. And I wouldn't even have to argue against the Big Bang. My argument is that there may have been many Big Bangs before the one that created our universe. There is also a theory known as the Big Crunch which goes that eventually, all matter would revert to the state it was once in before the Big Bang. This would support my theory that the universe may have had many "tries" until it came to a universe containing life.

Hell I don't even have to argue for or against the infinite time of the universe. All I have to look at is the infinite size. How many planets do you suppose there are in the universe? It is very possible that there are more than 10 to the 322 power planets and so the odds of one of these containing life is therefor statistically probable.

Thirdly, you seemed to not have finished reading my first point as you haven't addressed the alternative of deism.

And lastly, this would still in extent be an argument from ignorance since you're basically saying "we don't know how the universe came to be so it must have come from God".

Complexity with purpose does indicate design. Again, a series of breaches could, though its statistically impossible, indicate a totally random natural occurrence, but it is much more probable that the breaches occurred as the result of a plan. The claim is not simply 'complexity ... blah' its the evidence of purpose in complexity ... complexity achieving results rather than nothing ... and with each link in the complexity needed to achieve a result ... the more improbable that complexity is in random chance rather than design.

The Big Bang is a theory, and it has evidence - like cosmic background radiation. May as well start denying evolution while you are at it. If this is what you have to do to maintain your atheism, so be it ...just please don't claim that science is what drives your atheism.

Lastly, deism is irrelevant to the case. The statistics state that it is clearly much more likely that the universe was designed rather than just happened. Whether a God subsequently stopped caring or not after that is another debate entirely.

BTW - as you take umbrage at not having every point addressed, I would appreciate it if you addressed the points I was making rather than introducing strawmen. I make no claims about the origins of the universe that are not already common in the scientific community ... specifically that there was a Big Bang, the fact that it didn't just fizzle out, and instead created ... life is really statistically improbable ... and the more we learn about the steps necessary for it to happen .. arising out of an explosion of pure energy ... well, that is statistically quite amazing.

"We don't know where the universe started from??" Who the hell is saying that? Isn't it you rejecting the Big Bang from ignorance? Seriously, are you simply pulling stuff off a random atheist website?

[Mithrae]

Statistics - simple mathematics (can you get much more logical than that?)

Here is statistical zero - as in statistically impossible.

"1/1050
(1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
(0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001)
Statistical 0

That is a 1 in 10 x 50th power, chance ... at which point, mathematicians equate to zero probability.

Here is the statistical probability that the universe just randomly created itself.

1/10322
=
1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That is a 1 in 10 to the 322 power chance - well beyond the statistic threshold of impossibility.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

So your atheism, in order to reject a creator in the universe, must embrace the statistical impossibility.

There is a proof of a God. Not a single fallacy in it.

1. You seem to misunderstand my question. I am not asking for arguments AGAINST atheism (which this still isn't). I'm asking for arguments FOR theism. There is a difference. For one, even if it were impossible for the universe to exist at random doesn't therefor mean that a personal entity called god created it. An alternative to theism is deism and in the case where atheism is refuted, deism is still possible.

I think you're misunderstanding deism, and if memory serves I pointed this out in a thread you started a few months back - the links are still in my browser's history, though it may have been a thread by Flail.

http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm
Deism is knowledge of God based on the application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature. The designs presuppose a Designer. Deism is therefore a natural religion and is not a "revealed" religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Features_of_deism
Constructive elements of deist thought included:
God exists, created and governs the universe.
God gave humans the ability to reason.

The term "personal entity" which you (and EduChris) use is quite vague to my mind - but if you mean a thinking/choosing entity then those descriptions of deism seem to fit the bill. I can't imagine that we could meaningfully talk about design of the universe without a thinking being.

-----

The most common solution to this impressive fine-tuning that I have seen, which Hawking and Mlodinow also suggest in their book, is to propose the existence of a multitude of invisible, undetectable universes of which ours is but one: In an infinite multiverse, surely there was bound to be one or two as incredible as ours!

I have not yet been convinced that this is a reasonable proposition, and since it is obviously neither observable, nor testable, nor falsifiable, it seems more along the lines of speculative metaphysics than science.

Actually there are several other plausible explanations. Although the idea of infinitely many universes certain does address the problem.

One thing I find quite impressive is that the Inflation Theory, originally proposed by Alan Guth, solves the cosmological constant problem precisely, yet that wasn't his reason for proposing the theory originally.

If memory serves The Grand Design (2010) mentions the inflation theory (and probably Guth himself, though I'd need to double-check that) but neither it (nor Wikipedia from what I've glanced over) acknowledge that a solution to the cosmological constant problem has been found. When did this discovery occur if you don't mind me asking, and is it widely acknowledged?

Moreover, the cosmological constant is not really constant at all. In fact, current observations suggest that Dark Energy will ultimately rip the universe apart.

This is another thing to consider as well. Not only are we living in a universe that appears to be "fine-tuned" for life, but it also appears that we are living within a very narrow region of time within this universe where life will be possible.

In other words, our universe was not always hospitable to life, nor will it continue to be hospitable to life for very much longer (in terms of cosmological timescales).

That's a good point. I'd appreciate any corrections to my limited knowledge, but I gather that the more complex molecules could only come about after the demise of 1st generation stars (and could only develop into life in orbit around 2nd generation stars). If the universe began some 14 billion years ago and if Earth, which formed some 4-5 billion years ago, was not especially early amongst such possible life-forming planets, we'd have perhaps 6-8 billion years of life-possible circumstances in the universe to date as a rough estimate? I don't know much about predicted futures for the universe as a whole, but our sun is estimated to last another 5 billion years or so (though whether the last billion or two will be life-permitting is dubious). I'd appreciate more information about how narrow this life-possible time-frame really is, but it's a valid point to make.

Of course for thousands of years Christians have already claimed that this world would pass away and we'd exist in another instead

Also, I personally don't buy into these "fine-tuning" observations. The reason being is because in a very real sense they are artificial.

What's being imagined is changing a single parameter without necessarily changing other parameters. In other words, they claim that if the strong force were slightly different atomic reactions could not exist as they currently do in our universe (i.e. keeping all the other forces and laws of physics the same).

But is that even a reasonable thing to suggest?

Perhaps the only way that the strength of the strong force could be changed is by changing the very laws of physics themselves. But if that is done perhaps nuclear reactions would unfold and behave in ways totally different from what we observe in our universe.

Another good point, which I'd considered regarding some of the more extreme lists of conditions in the sites Stubbornone has linked to. But again I wonder whether the likes of Stephen Hawking would be likely to fall into such a basic error?

It may be possible that a change in such-and-such parameter of the universe would necessitate a corresponding change in other parameters which would then still permit life-possible conditions. But that doesn't make the list of fine-tuned paramaters artificial, it just leaves open the faint possibility that they are not quite so remarkable as they initially appear.

So there may be three possible alternatives to the fine-tuning argument, one of which we haven't covered yet (though perhaps hinted at in Hawking/Mlodinow's phrase "life as we know it"):
> That a quasi-infinite multiverse renders the improbability of any one universe irrelevant
> That many/most/all possible sets of parameters for a universe could be life-permitting, since changes in one could necessitate changes in others
> That there may be other possible types of 'life,' not requiring complex molecules and planetary orbits, so the improbability of conditions for a certain type of life needn't be important

However I wonder if any of those potential alternatives are open to observation, testability or falsification?

Of course even as purely speculative alternatives they do detract at least a little from the weight of any fine-tuning argument.

[Justin108]

Complexity with purpose does indicate design. Again, a series of breaches could, though its statistically impossible, indicate a totally random natural occurrence, but it is much more probable that the breaches occurred as the result of a plan. The claim is not simply 'complexity ... blah' its the evidence of purpose in complexity ... complexity achieving results rather than nothing ... and with each link in the complexity needed to achieve a result ... the more improbable that complexity is in random chance rather than design.

If everything in the universe is designed then there is no example of what something non-designed would look like and so it becomes a circular argument.

"Everything that exists is designed because if it exists it must have been designed"



Also I would need to know what non-complex would look like. You would have to provide an example thereof for me to be able to contrast complex from non-complex otherwise it is a further fallacious argument.

"Everything is complex because it is more complex than that which is not complex" while "that which is not complex" does not exist since "everything is complex".


The watchmaker fallacy has been refuted by David Hume as follows:

Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose". Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognize human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied.

The Big Bang is a theory, and it has evidence - like cosmic background radiation. May as well start denying evolution while you are at it. If this is what you have to do to maintain your atheism, so be it ...just please don't claim that science is what drives your atheism.

If you read the entire paragraph, you would note that I needn't disagree with the Big Bang to support my point.

Lastly, deism is irrelevant to the case. The statistics state that it is clearly much more likely that the universe was designed rather than just happened. Whether a God subsequently stopped caring or not after that is another debate entirely.

Deism is very much relevant since if you recall me specifying in my OP aswell as later on in my discussion, I specifically asked for arguments for THEISM in contrast to DEISM. That's what the OP is about: arguing for THEISM.

I make no claims about the origins of the universe that are not already common in the scientific community ... specifically that there was a Big Bang, the fact that it didn't just fizzle out, and instead created ... life is really statistically improbable ... and the more we learn about the steps necessary for it to happen .. arising out of an explosion of pure energy ... well, that is statistically quite amazing.

Again I stress it is a scientific theory and theories can be questioned. There is a difference between theory and fact. But if you persist in believing a theory is as good as a fact then the Big Bang paired with abiogenesis and evolution would make theism obsolete.

"We don't know where the universe started from??" Who the hell is saying that? Isn't it you rejecting the Big Bang from ignorance? Seriously, are you simply pulling stuff off a random atheist website?

You're the one who pulled off the statistical argument off some apologist website. Hypocritical much? But anyway; the only thing I got from Google thus far is David Hume's refutation of the watchmaker fallacy but there is nothing wrong with having sources for your arguments. You had all the right to get your statistics online. I refuted it anyway.

[Mithrae]

Lastly, deism is irrelevant to the case. The statistics state that it is clearly much more likely that the universe was designed rather than just happened. Whether a God subsequently stopped caring or not after that is another debate entirely.

Deism is very much relevant since if you recall me specifying in my OP aswell as later on in my discussion, I specifically asked for arguments for THEISM in contrast to DEISM. That's what the OP is about: arguing for THEISM.

If there's a distinction between deism and theism, it's whether or not the deity in question has an ongoing interest and intervention in the world. The two possible examples of that which I can think of are physical intervention (miracles) and personal intervention (revelation or spiritual experiences). There are many reported occurrances of each of these, both in Christian tradition and in other religions.

Those might be viewed with a little more scepticism than reports of kings and battles, but if it were probable that our universe were designed with a view to producing life, we obviously wouldn't have any reason to view those reports with extreme scepticism. The probability that five reports are a product of delusion or deliberate falsification is obviously lower than the probability that a single report is a product of delusion or deliberate falsification. Therefore the probability that all reported accounts of miracles or revelatory/spiritual experience are false is quite low indeed. Without arbitrarily assigning excessive scepticism to those reports, it must be acknowledged that it's more likely that some of them involved genuine encounters/intervention - in other words that theism is significantly more probable than deism.

[Justin108]

If there's a distinction between deism and theism, it's whether or not the deity in question has an ongoing interest and intervention in the world. The two possible examples of that which I can think of are physical intervention (miracles) and personal intervention (revelation or spiritual experiences). There are many reported occurrances of each of these, both in Christian tradition and in other religions.

Those might be viewed with a little more scepticism than reports of kings and battles, but if it were probable that our universe were designed with a view to producing life, we obviously wouldn't have any reason to view those reports with extreme scepticism..

The fact that there are so many contradictory claims would give reason to doubt. One faith says god did one thing while another faith says different. It's like gossip magazines. If one magazine claims Brad Pitt is a vegan, another claims he loves meat, another claims he's gay, another claims he is a registered sex offender... eventually I would start wondering if a single one of these magazines are telling the truth and without one providing proof, there is no reason I should believe it in favor of another magazine.

And let's suppose for argument sake there is a deistic deity... the world would look the same way it does now: with rules and norms (physics for example) and with these scientific norms, if there is a claim that someone somehow managed to break these rules of physics, that claim would be met with skepticism. Even in a world where God exists, if you claim you have met him or you found a book that was written by him (or per his instructions) then these would still be radical claims that need justification.

[Justin108]

The probability that five reports are a product of delusion or deliberate falsification is obviously lower than the probability that a single report is a product of delusion or deliberate falsification. Therefore the probability that all reported accounts of miracles or revelatory/spiritual experience are false is quite low indeed. Without arbitrarily assigning excessive scepticism to those reports, it must be acknowledged that it's more likely that some of them involved genuine encounters/intervention - in other words that theism is significantly more probable than deism..

The difference is deism is a conclusion reached by logic only (even if it isn't always sound).
Theism is a conclusion based on claims.

I can for example argue that aliens exist due to the vastness of the universe. But to then claim aliens visited me is a claim not reached using logic.



"Therefore the probability that all reported accounts of miracles or revelatory/spiritual experience are false is quite low indeed"
- Why? There are also tons of claims about superstition. One claims a black cat is bad luck while another claims spilling salt is. No matter how many superstitious claims are made, not one is more likely to be true than another.