Why are you a theist?

[DrewPaul]

I consider myself a philosophical theist.

Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.[1] It represents belief in God entirely without doctrine, except for that which can be discerned by reason and the contemplation of natural laws. Some philosophical theists are persuaded of God's existence by philosophical arguments, while others consider themselves to have a religious faith that need not be, or could not be, supported by rational argument.

I'm in my 60's and over my life time I've gone from atheist, to very religious and then to a philosophical theist. Why not an atheist? Many atheists claim atheism isn't a belief, its just a disbelief. That's not actually true. Theism is the belief the universe was intentionally caused to exist for intelligent humans to exist by a Creator. Atheism is the positive belief no agent had to intentionally cause the universe and human life to exist. That's what atheism means, not or without God. For me to become an intellectually satisfied atheist, I would have to be convinced or at least given good reason or evidence to think mindless natural forces could cause the universe and all the conditions necessary for life to exist without any plan or intent to do so. The best 'non-god' explanation of how natural forces obtained all the conditions is because this is one of an infinitude of universes. Yet they acknowledge there is no direct evidence there are other universes.

Secondly almost universally all atheists subscribe to the doctrine there is no evidence of a Creator. Of course there is. The universe is what theist's claim the Creator created. Intelligent life is what theists claim the Creator caused to exist. Those facts don't just make the existence of a Creator possible, they are necessary for the claim to be true.

Of course the thread is open to atheists who wish to convince me the error of my thinking.

 

[Slavister]

The best 'non-god' explanation of how natural forces obtained all the conditions is because this is one of an infinitude of universes. Yet they acknowledge there is no direct evidence there are other universes.

Yes, that's one explanation - and there is MORE evidence of multiple universes than there is evidence of God.

There is also another explanation - see question #8 here. (In short, natural selection works at all levels and makes it much less than you'd think.)

Secondly almost universally all atheists subscribe to the doctrine there is no evidence of a Creator. Of course there is. The universe is what theist's claim the Creator created. Intelligent life is what theists claim the Creator caused to exist. Those facts don't just make the existence of a Creator possible, they are necessary for the claim to be true.

That's just circular reasoning. I can use same "logic" to prove that Universe was created by a turtle. Because my claim is that for intelligent life to exist a turtle must have created it, and therefore existence of human life itself is proof that turtle created it.

 

[DrewPaul]

Yes, that's one explanation - and there is MORE evidence of multiple universes than there is evidence of God.

Oh, such as?

There is also another explanation - see question #8 here. (In short, natural selection works at all levels and makes it much less than you'd think.)

I already commented on that in another thread.

That's just circular reasoning. I can use same "logic" to prove that Universe was created by a turtle. Because my claim is that for intelligent life to exist a turtle must have created it, and therefore existence of human life itself is proof that turtle created it.

I didn't offer the existence of the universe as proof. Just evidence. Evidence are facts that make a claim more probable than minus such facts.

You could use the existence of the universe as evidence it was caused by a turtle. But why bother? You believe that mindless naturalistic forces were able to cause the universe and life without plan or intent to do so. At least turtles have some intelligence.

 

[Slavister]

To add...

Atheism is the positive belief no agent had to intentionally cause the universe and human life to exist.

"Intention" is the key word, isn't it... Please define "intentionally". Does the "agent" have to have "feelings" and "intentions"? In the same way humans do?

Say human race dies but its advanced AI tools somehow survive and those AI tools happen to create some little "universe" on a chance... Is that intentional?

 

[Slavister]

Oh, such as?

What we know about Universe has some evidence that's best explained that way. (E.g. see here) It's a model that best explains our observations. It could be wrong but certainly models have often proven to be right in science long before they were a certainty. At least it's SOME evidence.... unlike God case.

I already commented on that in another thread.

Have not seen your comment. Not that I looked at all.

I didn't offer the existence of the universe as proof. Just evidence. Evidence are facts that make a claim more probable than minus such facts.

Why are you sticking with this nonsense? Circular reasoning is NOT evidence of anything. As illustrated, it's as much evidence of God as it is evidence of a turtle creating it.

You could use the existence of the universe as evidence it was caused by a turtle. But why bother?

To make it clear how hillarious it is to pretend that our existence itself is evidence of the answer that you CHOSE for yourself.

You are correct though. Instead of turtle, I could have said our existence is evidence of purely natural processes creating us for exact same reason.

So, no, you cannot count our existence as evidence of God vs no-God on any logical basis.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The theist argument (theory or logic?) involved is no more than: stuff exists as it is, therefore it was (must have been?) created (designed precisely?) as such by some invisible sky daddy with supernatural powers.

You then assert that no proof is required to confirm (support?) this argument (theory or logic?). In other words, belief (faith?) alone is sufficient to confirm the validity of Biblical (or some other religion’s version of) creation.

Evolution of the species (which has been observed) conflicts with this, so a ‘compromise’ was offered (invented later?) which posits that ‘intelligent design’ caused these changes over time to have occurred - presumably, with no further (documented?) divine intervention (or Biblical mention) required.

There are, of course, many other inconsistencies with the idea that ‘the universe’ was created ‘as is’ (precisely as described by the OT portions of Bible) within the last 6K years (or so), but that may be (conveniently?) ignored by simply stating “God works in mysterious ways”.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, that's one explanation - and there is MORE evidence of multiple universes than there is evidence of God.

There is also another explanation - see question #8 here. (In short, natural selection works at all levels and makes it much less than you'd think.)



That's just circular reasoning. I can use same "logic" to prove that Universe was created by a turtle. Because my claim is that for intelligent life to exist a turtle must have created it, and therefore existence of human life itself is proof that turtle created it.

That last part simply substituted a turtle (with superpowers?) as the (required?) designer/creator of all things for a creator called God.

 

[Slavister]

That last part simply substituted a turtle (with superpowers?) as the (required?) designer/creator of all things for a creator called God.

Nope. No superpowers. Just regular random turtle.

 

[Questerr]

I consider myself a philosophical theist.

Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.[1] It represents belief in God entirely without doctrine, except for that which can be discerned by reason and the contemplation of natural laws. Some philosophical theists are persuaded of God's existence by philosophical arguments, while others consider themselves to have a religious faith that need not be, or could not be, supported by rational argument.

I'm in my 60's and over my life time I've gone from atheist, to very religious and then to a philosophical theist. Why not an atheist? Many atheists claim atheism isn't a belief, its just a disbelief. That's not actually true. Theism is the belief the universe was intentionally caused to exist for intelligent humans to exist by a Creator. Atheism is the positive belief no agent had to intentionally cause the universe and human life to exist. That's what atheism means, not or without God. For me to become an intellectually satisfied atheist, I would have to be convinced or at least given good reason or evidence to think mindless natural forces could cause the universe and all the conditions necessary for life to exist without any plan or intent to do so. The best 'non-god' explanation of how natural forces obtained all the conditions is because this is one of an infinitude of universes. Yet they acknowledge there is no direct evidence there are other universes.

Secondly almost universally all atheists subscribe to the doctrine there is no evidence of a Creator. Of course there is. The universe is what theist's claim the Creator created. Intelligent life is what theists claim the Creator caused to exist. Those facts don't just make the existence of a Creator possible, they are necessary for the claim to be true.

Of course the thread is open to atheists who wish to convince me the error of my thinking.

The problem with your reasoning is at "caused the universe to exist". First, for that to be logical, you would need to demonstrate that the universe didn't exist at one point. Then you would need to demonstrate that its existence had a cause. Atheism does NOT claim that the universe "began to exist with an intentional cause by a creator". Atheism is a position on a singular issue: "Do you believe in a god?" If your answer is "no", then you are an atheist and any other beliefs you may have are external to atheism.

Now, on the issue of the origins of the universe, if we are using verifiable scientific information, the timeline of the universe only goes back to a few microseconds after the singularity already started expanding. We have no idea what was before that point and all the mathematical models we have start spitting out gibberish. So no, science makes no positive claims about what did or did not, intentionally or not, caused or not, brought our universe into it's current form. It's entirely possible (and supported by thermodynamics) that our universe has always existed in some form or another, as the universe is the sum total of all matter and energy within it, and matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, merely converted from one to another.

 

[Daisy]

I am a Christian because nothing else in life makes sense, is more logical and reasonable, than believing life began the way the Bible testifies to...by the "hands" of the Creator...if life came about by accident as evolution claims, our lives and all things in the universe, would be meaningless...

 

[DrewPaul]

The problem with your reasoning is at "caused the universe to exist". First, for that to be logical, you would need to demonstrate that the universe didn't exist at one point.

I rely on the scientific consensus that the universe began to exist about 13. 7 billion years ago. Do you believe the universe always existed or are you just throwing it out there?

Then you would need to demonstrate that its existence had a cause.

Do you believe it wasn't caused to exist or are you just raising an objection? The fact it exists and the consensus is it began to exist is enough reason to believe its existence had a cause. We also have an excellent track record of tracing an event to a cause.

Atheism does NOT claim that the universe "began to exist with an intentional cause by a creator". Atheism is a position on a singular issue: "Do you believe in a god?" If your answer is "no", then you are an atheist and any other beliefs you may have are external to atheism.

I agree. Theism is the belief a Creator intentionally caused the universe and life to exist. Atheism (all you get is the A) which means not or with out God. It claims whatever explanation there is for the existence of the universe and intelligent life it occurred without intent or mind. It also means our existence is the result of happenstance by forces that didn't want or intend our existence. Atheism results in a lot of positive claims most atheists have no interest in defending them.

Now, on the issue of the origins of the universe, if we are using verifiable scientific information, the timeline of the universe only goes back to a few microseconds after the singularity already started expanding. We have no idea what was before that point and all the mathematical models we have start spitting out gibberish.

You seem to be back peddling on your claim there might not be a cause to the universe. You're right though. Whatever caused the laws of physics we now observe wasn't anything akin to the laws of physics space-time. The consensus is time didn't exist until the universe started inflating (the big bang). Personally I reject the notion there is the natural and distinct from it is the supernatural. Its a phony delineation. If anything happens its natural.

So no, science makes no positive claims about what did or did not, intentionally or not, caused or not, brought our universe into it's current form.

So the belief it wasn't caused by intentionally by a Creator is a philosophical opinion just as belief it was intentionally caused by a Creator is, correct? I agree however I believe the available facts favor the existence it was intentionally caused.

It's entirely possible (and supported by thermodynamics) that our universe has always existed in some form or another, as the universe is the sum total of all matter and energy within it, and matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, merely converted from one to another.

You're projecting laws of physics that exist now to before they existed.

What we do know is.

• the universe exists
  life exists
• intelligent life exists.
• 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.
• 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.

 

[DrewPaul]

What we know about Universe has some evidence that's best explained that way. (E.g. see here) It's a model that best explains our observations. It could be wrong but certainly models have often proven to be right in science long before they were a certainty. At least it's SOME evidence.... unlike God case.

I agree if multiverse hypothesis (which many consider to not be scientific) is true it would be a powerful naturalistic mindless explanation for why we exist in a universe that seems tailor made for our existence. On the other hand its a pretty wild theory and built into the theory is the explanation and can't be falsified.

Why are you sticking with this nonsense? Circular reasoning is NOT evidence of anything. As illustrated, it's as much evidence of God as it is evidence of a turtle creating it.

Or what you believe that mindless natural forces sprung into existence somehow and without plan or intent caused the exacting conditions for us to exist and ponder this question. If you don't think a turtle could have caused the universe to exist (in part because its too dumb) then how is it you think mindless natural forces could have caused a universe? Aren't they even dumber than a turtle?

You are correct though. Instead of turtle, I could have said our existence is evidence of purely natural processes creating us for exact same reason.

The comparison is that unguided natural forces minus any plan or intent fortuitously caused a universe and intelligent life to exist as opposed to the universe having been intentionally caused to exist by an intelligence using design. I know that scientists used the intelligence and design method to cause a virtual universe to exist. Could mindless naturalistic forces caused a virtual universe to exist?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I agree if multiverse hypothesis (which many consider to not be scientific) is true it would be a powerful naturalistic mindless explanation for why we exist in a universe that seems tailor made for our existence. On the other hand its a pretty wild theory and built into the theory is the explanation and can't be falsified.


Or what you believe that mindless natural forces sprung into existence somehow and without plan or intent caused the exacting conditions for us to exist and ponder this question. If you don't think a turtle could have caused the universe to exist (in part because its too dumb) then how is it you think mindless natural forces could have caused a universe? Aren't they even dumber than a turtle?


The comparison is that unguided natural forces minus any plan or intent fortuitously caused a universe and intelligent life to exist as opposed to the universe having been intentionally caused to exist by an intelligence using design. I know that scientists used the intelligence and design method to cause a virtual universe to exist. Could mindless naturalistic forces caused a virtual universe to exist?

On the other hand, if the universe was intentionally designed by a (mythical?) creator to support human life then why on only one planet in only one solar system out of the over 100B stars in the Milky Way galaxy? That seems like a lot of wasted ‘intelligent design’ creation effort and material to accomplish such a limited (single purpose?) mission.

 

[DrewPaul]

That last part simply substituted a turtle (with superpowers?) as the (required?) designer/creator of all things for a creator called God.

I'm proposing design, intent on purpose. You know the way thinking people use intelligence and cause things to happen. The way scientists caused a virtual universe to exist. Some think this universe is simulated.

 

[DrewPaul]

On the other hand, if the universe was intentionally designed by a (mythical?) creator to support human life then why on only one planet in only one solar system out of the over 100B stars in the Milky Way galaxy? That seems like a lot of wasted ‘intelligent design’ creation effort and material to accomplish such a limited (single purpose?) mission.

There are a lot of suppositions in this paragraph. If there is one advanced civilization per galaxy that would be billions of civilized intelligent beings. But no one knows. Secondly only from our perspective would it be a waste of space. Our imagination is limited by being in space-time.

On the other hand what is your actual non-mythical non magical counter explanation? Some how forces came into existence and without plan, intent or an engineering degree caused a universe to exist with gravity and the laws of physics that allowed for stars, galaxies, solar systems, planets, carbon, water all the myriad of conditions necessary for people to exist yet totally unnecessary for brute naturalistic forces.

 

[Phys251]

I consider myself a philosophical theist.

Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.[1] It represents belief in God entirely without doctrine, except for that which can be discerned by reason and the contemplation of natural laws. Some philosophical theists are persuaded of God's existence by philosophical arguments, while others consider themselves to have a religious faith that need not be, or could not be, supported by rational argument.

I'm in my 60's and over my life time I've gone from atheist, to very religious and then to a philosophical theist. Why not an atheist? Many atheists claim atheism isn't a belief, its just a disbelief. That's not actually true. Theism is the belief the universe was intentionally caused to exist for intelligent humans to exist by a Creator. Atheism is the positive belief no agent had to intentionally cause the universe and human life to exist. That's what atheism means, not or without God. For me to become an intellectually satisfied atheist, I would have to be convinced or at least given good reason or evidence to think mindless natural forces could cause the universe and all the conditions necessary for life to exist without any plan or intent to do so. The best 'non-god' explanation of how natural forces obtained all the conditions is because this is one of an infinitude of universes. Yet they acknowledge there is no direct evidence there are other universes.

Secondly almost universally all atheists subscribe to the doctrine there is no evidence of a Creator. Of course there is. The universe is what theist's claim the Creator created. Intelligent life is what theists claim the Creator caused to exist. Those facts don't just make the existence of a Creator possible, they are necessary for the claim to be true.

Of course the thread is open to atheists who wish to convince me the error of my thinking.

I honestly thought you were an atheist. Did you change?

 

[ttwtt78640]

There are a lot of suppositions in this paragraph. If there is one advanced civilization per galaxy that would be billions of civilized intelligent beings. But no one knows. Secondly only from our perspective would it be a waste of space. Our imagination is limited by being in space-time.

On the other hand what is your actual non-mythical non magical counter explanation? Some how forces came into existence and without plan, intent or an engineering degree caused a universe to exist with gravity and the laws of physics that allowed for stars, galaxies, solar systems, planets, carbon, water all the myriad of conditions necessary for people to exist yet totally unnecessary for brute naturalistic forces.

First of all, I need no “explanation” (aka why) for the existence of matter, (empty) space, time or energy. Second, I don’t need you to tell me that a sky daddy with superpowers (aka God) must have created all of that (those?) from nothing (but its own will?) at all. Never mind what created that mythical creator.

The Big Bang is a fine theory, yet lacks explaining (accounting for?) what (perhaps a black hole?), exactly, went bang, when and (most importantly) why.

I posit that the Big Bang (if it occurred) was preceded by the big shrink (collapse?) and that existence of all (which we can observe, called the universe) is simply an endless (and thus beginningless?) cycle which infinitely repeats without any (intelligent) designer involved at all.

 

[Rexedgar]

I am a Christian because nothing else in life makes sense, is more logical and reasonable, than believing life began the way the Bible testifies to...by the "hands" of the Creator...if life came about by accident as evolution claims, our lives and all things in the universe, would be meaningless...

ashes to ashes, dust to dust…..

 

[DrewPaul]

First of all, I need no “explanation” (aka why) for the existence of matter, (empty) space, time or energy. Second, I don’t need you to tell me that a sky daddy with superpowers (aka God) must have created all of that (those?) from nothing (but its own will?) at all. Never mind what created that mythical creator.

I need an explanation if I'm going to reject the belief it was intentionally caused.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I need an explanation if I'm going to reject the belief it was intentionally caused.

Who (or what) intentionally created your (invisible?) intelligent creator? If you can accept that as being unknown (or unimportant) then why not the observable universe as well?

 

[Noodlegawd]

I consider myself a philosophical theist.

Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.[1] It represents belief in God entirely without doctrine, except for that which can be discerned by reason and the contemplation of natural laws. Some philosophical theists are persuaded of God's existence by philosophical arguments, while others consider themselves to have a religious faith that need not be, or could not be, supported by rational argument.

I'm in my 60's and over my life time I've gone from atheist, to very religious and then to a philosophical theist. Why not an atheist? Many atheists claim atheism isn't a belief, its just a disbelief. That's not actually true. Theism is the belief the universe was intentionally caused to exist for intelligent humans to exist by a Creator. Atheism is the positive belief no agent had to intentionally cause the universe and human life to exist. That's what atheism means, not or without God. For me to become an intellectually satisfied atheist, I would have to be convinced or at least given good reason or evidence to think mindless natural forces could cause the universe and all the conditions necessary for life to exist without any plan or intent to do so. The best 'non-god' explanation of how natural forces obtained all the conditions is because this is one of an infinitude of universes. Yet they acknowledge there is no direct evidence there are other universes.

Secondly almost universally all atheists subscribe to the doctrine there is no evidence of a Creator. Of course there is. The universe is what theist's claim the Creator created. Intelligent life is what theists claim the Creator caused to exist. Those facts don't just make the existence of a Creator possible, they are necessary for the claim to be true.

Of course the thread is open to atheists who wish to convince me the error of my thinking.

I'm not, but I was as a child because adults brainwashed me into it. It took me until my teen years to fix myself.

 

[Slavister]

Or what you believe that mindless natural forces sprung into existence somehow and without plan or intent caused the exacting conditions for us to exist and ponder this question. If you don't think a turtle could have caused the universe to exist (in part because its too dumb) then how is it you think mindless natural forces could have caused a universe? Aren't they even dumber than a turtle?

Wow. Way to miss the point. The point was that you pretending that our existence itself is evidence of God is just as ridiculous as it being evidence of a turtle or any other explanation.

As for how natural forces caused us to exist - see natural selection and other scientific ways describing processes that ended up with us being created. Yes, turtle is way less likely than that.

The comparison is that unguided natural forces minus any plan or intent fortuitously caused a universe and intelligent life to exist as opposed to the universe having been intentionally caused to exist by an intelligence using design. I know that scientists used the intelligence and design method to cause a virtual universe to exist. Could mindless naturalistic forces caused a virtual universe to exist?

Yes, they could.

At the end of the day you are just having problem imagining it and thus you believe in God. Your coming up with "evidence" based on circular reasoning does not help convince anyone though. Belief is just that.

And if you believe that something with "intent" (you still have not explained what THAT means) MUST HAVE created complex life like us, then WHAT AGENT must have created your God since clearly God must be quite complex itself. And once you answer that question, WHAT AGENT must have created the AGENT that created your God? That also must be a complex entity.

And once you answer that question, WHAT AGENT must have created the AGENT that created the AGENT that created your God? That also must be a complex entity.

And once you answer that question, WHAT AGENT must have created the AGENT that created the AGENT that created the AGENT that created your God? That also must be a complex entity.

...

 

[Slartibartfast]

Per the OP's definition of theist, I cannot say that I am as it ignores the fact that humanity is limited in certain ways and simply is not capable of fully understanding the mysteries of life and creation, at least not in this age (there is some room in my mind for debate on whether that will be the case in the future or not).

 

[ataraxia]

I am a Christian because nothing else in life makes sense, is more logical and reasonable, than believing life began the way the Bible testifies to...by the "hands" of the Creator...if life came about by accident as evolution claims, our lives and all things in the universe, would be meaningless...

I think wanting everything once and for all is at the root of the problem.

Science never makes claims to any ultimate truths or wanting to make sense of everything. It TRIES- but it is always in the process of doing so, not saying it has ever finally arrived once and for all. The emphasis lies in the method and the process, not the destination. And it turns out that has not been its weakness, but its strength. That's why its eyes, ears, and brain are always open to new ideas and new observations. That's why it's always growing and learning more.

But if, in our insistence of knowing "ultimate truth" and making sense of everything once and for all, we glom on to religion and 'faith", we are doomed to closed mindedness. Because, after all, if you already know the ultimate truths, why be open to any new ideas or new observations? It's no wonder that the most closed minded, stagnant, and backward societies in the world are also the most religious. But, as science has progressed, we have realized all the claims previously made through this route have been incorrect- from the doctrine that the Earth is the center of the Universe to evolutionary biology.

Maybe our fundamental problem is this insistence of wanting everything to make sense in some ultimate way, and feel like we know the real "ultimate truth"- rather than just be contented with "this is the best we know so far, based on our best current state of knowledge and observations". The only advantage of the former mindset is having the "comfort of faith". But that seems to me to just be the comfort of an ostrich with its head in the sand.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I think wanting everything to make ultimate sense is at the root of the problem.

Science never makes claims to any ultimate truths or wanting to make sense of everything. And it turns out that has not been its weakness, it's been it's strength. That's why its eyes, ears, and brain are always open to new ideas and new observations.

But if, in our insistence of knowing "ultimate truth" and making sense of everything once and for all, we glom on to religion and 'faith", we are doomed to closed mindedness. Because, after all, if you already know the ultimate truths, why be open to any new ideas or new observations? It's no wonder that the most closed minded, stagnant, and backward societies in the world are also the most religious. But, as science has progressed, we have realized all the claims made through this route have been incorrect- from the doctrine that the Earth is the center of the Universe to evolutionary biology.

Maybe our problem is this insistence of having everything make sense in some ultimate way, and feel like we know the real "ultimate truth", rather than just be contented with "this is the best we know so far, based on our best current state of knowledge and observations". The only advantage of the former mindset is having the "comfort of faith". But that seems to me to just be the comfort of an ostrich with its head in the sand.

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Susan B. Anthony