Belief is Opinion

[ghoulslime]

Michael wrote

Close. It would mean "not theist" and "not theism". But you nearly had it. You also weirdly added a whole bunch of extra 'not's in there. I'm assuming that was some sort of attempt to make it look as grammatically incorrect as possible in some sort of confused attempt to pretend that somehow makes your point.

But regardless, how does this in any way effect my point (which you seem to be backing up?)

Why? I do not have a theistic belief. Therefore I am not theist. Therefore I am atheist. What else would I call myself?

I supposed anti theist could work, but has negative overtones that I dislike. How about non-theist?

Regardless of which term you use, the results (and my not having a theistic belief) remains exactly the same.

So because I don't believe other people's claims, and will happily tell them why, somehow I'm dodging?

No.

Why can't the answer be "I don't know, but you're yet to show me that it has to be the result of a god"?

Why can't the answer be "I don't know, but you're yet to show me that it has to be the result of a god"?

Why can't the answer be "I don't know, but you're yet to show me that it has to be the result of a god"?

Someone also said "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Both are good quotes.

So are you actually suggesting that if we can't give you an answer, by default your answer must be correct?
Are you really going to go with that?
Do I really have to explain to you why that is wrong?

Okay. Good for them.

Why can't the answer be "I don't know, but you're yet to show me that it has to be the result of a god"?

The party is not really going as Drew planned, eh?

[ghoulslime]

Sinfidel wrote

How I envy this man his rightful place in the annals of science!



My epitaph can only claim that I was a minor annoyance to a few Theologues.

I would argue that it is a grand achievement to make it through life without engaging in any monumental asininities, to live a simple and honest life, and to never be even briefly considered for a Darwin award.

[Drew_2013]

But regardless, how does this in any way effect my point (which you seem to be backing up?)

My point is isn't is chicken shit for a forum that calls themselves Raving Atheists, lampoons theists, equates belief in God to Santa and leprechauns then admits they don't actually disbelieve in the existence of God but merely lack belief in the existence of God. Do the atheists on this board merely lack belief in Santa Claus? Or in Fairies and leprechauns? Is the evidence against the existence of God so tepid that atheists can't even render the opinion (not stated as a fact) that God(s) don't exist? If the available evidence against the existence of God is so tepid that even atheists can't opine God doesn't exist what beef do they have with theists who do believe God exists?

I supposed anti theist could work, but has negative overtones that I dislike. How about non-theist?

I like it. People who actively disbelieve in the existence of God can call themselves atheists, weak atheists agnostics can call themselves non-theists.

So because I don't believe other people's claims, and will happily tell them why, somehow I'm dodging?

My comments weren't directed to you in particular but to raving atheists who claim they only lack belief in God.

Why can't the answer be "I don't know, but you're yet to show me that it has to be the result of a god"?

Nothing is wrong with that answer. Do others in this forum that mock and ridicule theism as an absurd belief also admit they don't know?

Is our existence the result of a mindless process that didn't intend our existence or is our existence the result of planning and design?

Why can't the answer be "I don't know, but you're yet to show me that it has to be the result of a god"?

I'll make use of an analogy. Suppose you and I are homicide detectives and are called in to determine the cause of a death. We examine all the available evidence on the scene which are simply the known facts of the case. I render the opinion it was the result of an intentional act but you reject that notion. We both know that neither of us knows for a fact what caused the death (there are no witnesses or video), that's why we're examining the evidence and rendering an opinion. Saying you don't know what caused the death isn't sufficient reason to reject the opinion it was an intentional act. Unless you reject the idea it was natural causes with as much enthusiasm as you do the belief it was an intentional act. Now I'll insert this analogy into our discussion. Do you reject the notion the universe and life are the result of natural unguided causes as much as you do the belief it was the intentional result of a Creator? If you honestly don't know and don't believe there is enough evidence to render an opinion, you should be an 'a-naturalist' as well as an atheist. At the least I would think the knuckleheads in this forum who lampoon, mock and ridicule theism have more of an opinion then I don't know.

I've never said the universe and our existence has to be or must be the result of a Creator. I believe it was the result of a Creator because there is (in my opinion of course) more evidence in favor of such a belief than against it. I'll start a new thread to make that case.

[dogpet]

Drew_2013 wrote

I'll make use of an analogy. Suppose you and I are homicide detectives and are called in to determine the cause of a death. We examine all the available evidence on the scene which are simply the known facts of the case. I render the opinion it was the result of an intentional act but you reject that notion. We both know that neither of us knows for a fact what caused the death (there are no witnesses or video), that's why we're examining the evidence and rendering an opinion. Saying you don't know what caused the death isn't sufficient reason to reject the opinion it was an intentional act. Unless you reject the idea it was natural causes with as much enthusiasm as you do the belief it was an intentional act. Now I'll insert this analogy into our discussion. Do you reject the notion the universe and life are the result of natural unguided causes as much as you do the belief it was the intentional result of a Creator? If you honestly don't know and don't believe there is enough evidence to render an opinion, you should be an 'a-naturalist' as well as an atheist. At the least I would think the knuckleheads in this forum who lampoon, mock and ridicule theism have more of an opinion then I don't know.

Okeh chap; supposing Columbo were to suggest that that victim had been taken down by a thunderbolt from the axe of god Thor. How much credance would you give to that? Do you completely deny the possibility, & if so, how do you come to that conclusion?

[ghoulslime]

Drew_2013 wrote

I'll make use of an analogy. Suppose you and I are homicide detectives and are called in to determine the cause of a death. We examine all the available evidence on the scene which are simply the known facts of the case. I render the opinion it was the result of an intentional act but you reject that notion. We both know that neither of us knows for a fact what caused the death (there are no witnesses or video), that's why we're examining the evidence and rendering an opinion. Saying you don't know what caused the death isn't sufficient reason to reject the opinion it was an intentional act. Unless you reject the idea it was natural causes with as much enthusiasm as you do the belief it was an intentional act. Now I'll insert this analogy into our discussion. Do you reject the notion the universe and life are the result of natural unguided causes as much as you do the belief it was the intentional result of a Creator? If you honestly don't know and don't believe there is enough evidence to render an opinion, you should be an 'a-naturalist' as well as an atheist. At the least I would think the knuckleheads in this forum who lampoon, mock and ridicule theism have more of an opinion then I don't know.

Well, fuck your ass, and call you a cream-filled doughnut! William Paley's fallacious watchmaker analogy all repackaged in a new and improved fallacy! Thank you for reheating these yummy leftovers for us!

There are many possible causes for a deceased person, all of which have demonstrable possibilities and probabilities; many of these can be empirically demonstrated by a good detective. People die from natural causes and are also killed by other humans, all of the time. Both of these death mechanisms are logically valid possibilities, until greater-detailed context is ascertained.

On the other hand, inventing possible causes for the origin of the universe, aside from natural causes with measurable mechanisms, without any evidence of a supernatural origin, without any historical data of universes being created by a supernatural means, does not have equal logical weight as the preceding example. This is a flawed analogy.

One is an apple. One is an orange.

How do you like them apples? Orange you glad we got that stupidity cleared up?

You have a broken brain, assclown.

[ghoulslime]

Drew_2013 wrote

I've never said the universe and our existence has to be or must be the result of a Creator. I believe it was the result of a Creator because there is (in my opinion of course) more evidence in favor of such a belief than against it. I'll start a new thread to make that case.

Here's an idea, scumbag: Go ahead and put all of that amazing evidence right here in this thread, where we have already demanded it multiple times. You don't get to start on even ground again, now that you have already dug your cesspool this deep. Save yourself the trouble of getting put into a little monkey cage by our extraordinary administrators, and keep your poo poo in this little virtual diaper, sweetie pie.

[Smellyoldgit]

Drew_2013 wrote

I've never said the universe and our existence has to be or must be the result of a Creator. I believe it was the result of a Creator because there is (in my opinion of course) more evidence in favor of such a belief than against it. I'll start a new thread to make that case.

Jesus fucking bollocks - a passing intellect with heaps of real evidence - my scrotum is bursting with excitement! Oh please start as many threads as you wish - spread the stupid far and wide - let the world revel in the newly found knowledge of the semantically challenged buffoon. We can always sweep the nonsense into one cess pool of idiocy if the stench gets too bad.

Please allow me to start:-

Evidence for a Creator,

1) ....... er, that's it ....

[ghoulslime]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Please allow me to start:-

Evidence for a Creator,

1) ....... er, that's it ....

My boner starts to resurrect, when I think of Jesus hanging naked on the cross.

[Michael]

ghoulslime wrote

The party is not really going as Drew planned, eh?

Ahahahahahahaha I love it. *



*the actual sounds that came out of my mouth when I watched that gif.

[Michael]

Drew_2013 wrote

My point is isn't is chicken shit for a forum that calls themselves Raving Atheists, lampoons theists, equates belief in God to Santa and leprechauns then admits they don't actually disbelieve in the existence of God but merely lack belief in the existence of God.

Why would it be? There is as much evidence for santa or leprechauns as there is for god, but because it's more socially acceptable to believe in god we're supposed to accept it as more true? In the next part, I'm going to link to what I think is a very relevant post I made on the whole god/santa issue.

Do the atheists on this board merely lack belief in Santa Claus?

please refer to this post. about half way down it starts.

Or in Fairies and leprechauns? Is the evidence against the existence of God so tepid that atheists can't even render the opinion (not stated as a fact) that God(s) don't exist?

There are atheists that would say that. I'm not one of them. I won't speak for them.
I will speak for myself, however, and say that I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that I believe the christian god does not exist.
And, yes, given that is a claim, it would be my responsibility to give my reasons why if asked.
But no, I won't go into that right now as it isn't what this thread is currently about. Perhaps some other time, or in another thread.

If the available evidence against the existence of God is so tepid that even atheists can't opine God doesn't exist what beef do they have with theists who do believe God exists?

I believe it was William Shakespeare who wrote

What’s god-of-the-gaps? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Fallacy would, were it not god-of-the-gaps call’d,
Retain that dear imperfection which it owes
Without that title. God-of-the-gaps, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Learn how to logic.


That argument is simply 'well if you can't prove god doesn't exist, it's reasonable to believe my unfounded hypothesis, and you're wrong to tell people it isn't'. It's god-of-the-gaps by another name.

I like it. People who actively disbelieve in the existence of God can call themselves atheists, weak atheists agnostics can call themselves non-theists.

Okay. It doesn't really change the core of the argument, though. Call them whatever you want, they are still the same thing.


It's ironic that the previous shakespeare quote would work just as well here. Maybe not modified like that, though.

Nothing is wrong with that answer. Do others in this forum that mock and ridicule theism as an absurd belief also admit they don't know?

I've said many times before and will say again now: I won't speak for other atheists. i'll speak for myself. So I can't answer you rhetorical question.

I'll make use of an analogy. Suppose you and I are homicide detectives and are called in to determine the cause of a death.

Alright. But I'm Wheels. You can be The Legman.

We examine all the available evidence on the scene which are simply the known facts of the case. I render the opinion it was the result of an intentional act but you reject that notion.

With you so far, Legman.

We both know that neither of us knows for a fact what caused the death (there are no witnesses or video), that's why we're examining the evidence and rendering an opinion.

Good god. I feel bad for anyone who you send to trial for 'an opinion'. We're not looking at the evidence to see what works best for us. We're working the evidence to see what actually happened.

If you can't get enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt what happened, you can't get a conviction. It doesn't matter a witch's tit what your opinion of what happened is if you can't get enough evidence to show that.

See, this is why you can't be Wheels.

Saying you don't know what caused the death isn't sufficient reason to reject the opinion it was an intentional act.

No. But it is enough to say that you shouldn't hold the belief that it was an intentional act. Because then you're disregarding the other possibilities without the evidence to show that is the right course of action.

Unless you reject the idea it was natural causes with as much enthusiasm as you do the belief it was an intentional act.

So let's say I just flipped a coin, and don't tell anyone here what it is. Then someone else here tells you it's heads, even though he hasn't seen the coin and I didn't tell him. Do you believe him?
And if you don't believe him, does that mean that you automatically believe it is tails? After all, if you're rejecting the idea that it is head you must be saying it is tails.

So why do you believe the coin I tossed is tails? What reason do you have to come over here while we are investigating a murder and be insisting that the coin i flipped in my own time was tails? Focus on the damn case, and maybe you won't end up sending someone to the electric chair for an opinion. Dammit, Legman.

Now I'll insert this analogy into our discussion. Do you reject the notion the universe and life are the result of natural unguided causes as much as you do the belief it was the intentional result of a Creator?

No. There is more to support that possibility. It's not conclusive, however. The end result, though, is we don't know for certain how it happened at this point.

If you honestly don't know and don't believe there is enough evidence to render an opinion, you should be an 'a-naturalist' as well as an atheist. At the least I would think the knuckleheads in this forum who lampoon, mock and ridicule theism have more of an opinion then I don't know.

Do I seriously need to quote Romeo and Juliet again?

It doesn't matter if we call ourselves 'anaturalists' also, our ideas stay the same. The reason we don't call ourselves that is because we don't need to seperate our ideas from those of naturalists.
We do have a need to seperate them from theists, though. Hence why we use that term and not the other.

But it really doesn't mean jack shit what we call ourselves. It's our ideas that are important.

I've never said the universe and our existence has to be or must be the result of a Creator. I believe it was the result of a Creator because there is (in my opinion of course) more evidence in favor of such a belief than against it. I'll start a new thread to make that case.

Okay. Go do that and we'll talk. And laugh. And maybe flirt a little. As long as you keep your hands above the waist.

[ghoulslime]

Michael wrote

I believe it was William Shakespeare who wrote

What’s god-of-the-gaps? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Fallacy would, were it not god-of-the-gaps call’d,
Retain that dear imperfection which it owes
Without that title. God-of-the-gaps, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Learn how to logic.

I am pretty sure this quote is from Larry Shakespeare, William's younger and less talented brother. It is from the tragedy Romeo and Gapiet. Romeo falls in love with a gap, only to realize that he can't really fill the gap sufficiently. It leads to a deep disappointment in the end.

[Drew_2013]

Ghoulslime,

Well, fuck your ass, and call you a cream-filled doughnut! William Paley's fallacious watchmaker analogy all repackaged in a new and improved fallacy! Thank you for reheating these yummy leftovers for us!

Well suck my dick and choke like a girly man Ghoulslime is actually capable of a quasi intelligent response. Don't try to guess where I'm heading or what I will argue you'll only hurt yourself.

There are many possible causes for a deceased person, all of which have demonstrable possibilities and probabilities; many of these can be empirically demonstrated by a good detective. People die from natural causes and are also killed by other humans, all of the time. Both of these death mechanisms are logically valid possibilities, until greater-detailed context is ascertained.

Not surprising the point alluded you. The same holds true for the existence of the universe, either it was the result of an intentional act or it was the result of mindless forces that either always existed (in one form or another) in which case we'd have the endless recession of events to contend with or mindless forces through an act of magic bootstrapped themselves into existence and then created a universe. Or it was the result of an intentional act by a Creator (no I don't know how or where the Creator came into existence any more than you know how or where mindless forces came into existence).

On the other hand, inventing possible causes for the origin of the universe, aside from natural causes with measurable mechanisms, without any evidence of a supernatural origin, without any historical data of universes being created by a supernatural means, does not have equal logical weight as the preceding example. This is a flawed analogy.

Is there any historical data of universes being created by natural means? Did the existence of the universe have a cause? The natural causes you speak of are the ones we're familiar with like gravity the laws of physics and so forth. Did the natural causes were familiar with cause their own existence?

Michael,

My point is isn't is chicken shit for a forum that calls themselves Raving Atheists, lampoons theists, equates belief in God to Santa and leprechauns then admits they don't actually disbelieve in the existence of God but merely lack belief in the existence of God.

Why would it be? There is as much evidence for santa or leprechauns as there is for god, but because it's more socially acceptable to believe in god we're supposed to accept it as more true? In the next part, I'm going to link to what I think is a very relevant post I made on the whole god/santa issue.

Its not because its more socially acceptable, its because of the overwhelming evidence against the existence of a mystical person who can deliver presents world wide in a single evening. Its because people who whimsically promote the existence of Santa Claus would admit they bought the gifts and put them under the tree. Its because if we surreptitiously videoed homes where Santa is alleged to deliver presents we'd find it was humans who did so. If there was equivalent evidence against the existence of God as against Santa 95% of the people would be atheists. Any by the way there wouldn't be any limp wrist a-santaists who claim they just have a 'lack of belief' in Santa.

please refer to this post. about half way down it starts.

I read a little of it...I'm a philosophical theist I'm not affiliated with any church or promoting any particular religion.

If the available evidence against the existence of God is so tepid that even atheists can't opine God doesn't exist what beef do they have with theists who do believe God exists?

That argument is simply 'well if you can't prove god doesn't exist, it's reasonable to believe my unfounded hypothesis, and you're wrong to tell people it isn't'. It's god-of-the-gaps by another name.

The argument I will make is a God of the facts argument but keep your eyes peeled, in response there will be plenty of 'naturalism in the gaps' counter arguments.

I've said many times before and will say again now: I won't speak for other atheists. i'll speak for myself. So I can't answer you rhetorical question.

You seem like a reasonable person which is why I'm spending time responding...

Good god. I feel bad for anyone who you send to trial for 'an opinion'. We're not looking at the evidence to see what works best for us. We're working the evidence to see what actually happened.

In this case we're only determining if it was natural causes or an intentional act. No one's going to jail yet.

If you can't get enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt what happened, you can't get a conviction. It doesn't matter a witch's tit what your opinion of what happened is if you can't get enough evidence to show that.

If it goes forward to a trial (and someone is accused) then the burden of evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt. In our case (arguing the existence or non-existence of God) would be a civil case in which a mere preponderance of evidence is the only burden.

Saying you don't know what caused the death isn't sufficient reason to reject the opinion it was an intentional act.

No. But it is enough to say that you shouldn't hold the belief that it was an intentional act. Because then you're disregarding the other possibilities without the evidence to show that is the right course of action.

If however I do offer evidence that indicates it was an intentional act you'd have to counter that with evidence it was natural causes...true?

So why do you believe the coin I tossed is tails? What reason do you have to come over here while we are investigating a murder and be insisting that the coin i flipped in my own time was tails? Focus on the damn case, and maybe you won't end up sending someone to the electric chair for an opinion. Dammit, Legman.

If in fact there was no evidence the death was the result of an intentional act or natural causes the corner would list the cause of death as undetermined. I would say most of the folks in this forum aren't arguing the cause of the universe and life is undetermined, most will argue its the result of natural causes when they're not hiding behind the lack of belief tactic.

Now I'll insert this analogy into our discussion. Do you reject the notion the universe and life are the result of natural unguided causes as much as you do the belief it was the intentional result of a Creator?

No. There is more to support that possibility. It's not conclusive, however. The end result, though, is we don't know for certain how it happened at this point.

Excellent. Now were on a level playing field, you believe the available evidence (in the case of the existence of the universe) leans toward natural causes, I believe it leans towards an intentional act.

[Drew_2013]

There is a reason most sane lucid adults who don't believe in Fairies, Santa Claus, Invisible pink elephants do believe in a Creator of the universe and humans. It's not just because folks are brought up to believe in the existence of God, there are plenty of beliefs folks are taught as children that they later reject. It's because in part it's the best explanation for why we find ourselves alive and in a universe that allows our existence.

Theism to me is a belief and an opinion, I don't claim it's a fact. It's an opinion regarding the most basic philosophical questions people have asked. Why is there a universe? Why is there something rather than nothing? How did our existence come about? And perhaps the most puzzling question, is our existence the result of planning and design or was it the result of happenstance? This is in essence the question of theism as opposed to atheism. I know atheists are very sensitive about how atheism is defined. Most define it as nothing more than a 'lack of belief in the existence of God' they prefer this definition because then they can insist that only the theist has a burden of evidence. The dictionary definition of atheism is not or without God(s). Just as asexual means reproduction without sex atheism means without God. What without God? The universe and humans of course. Regardless of which definition atheists prefer you can ask anyone who calls them self an atheist do you believe we owe the existence of the universe and human life to a personal transcendent Creator of great power and invariably they answer no. They don't merely lack belief that a transcendent Creator of great power caused the universe and humans to exist, they don't believe such was the case.

There are two primary reasons I am a theist. First because there are facts (evidence) that supports that belief. Secondly if I were to reject the belief that God created the universe and humans I would have to be persuaded that mindless lifeless forces somehow coughed a universe into existence and without plan or intent caused the right conditions for life to occur. I'd have to believe that life and mind without plan or intent emerged from something totally unlike itself, mindless lifeless forces. I know most atheists prefer we just reject God first and then take it on faith that that our existence was caused by naturalistic forces that didn't intend our existence and that the universe also just came into existence for no particular reason. We should just assume that natural forces did it somehow. I'll leave it to atheists to persuade me such did happen or such could happen. After all we're not supposed to just take things on faith.

One of the chief objections to theism cited by atheists is they claim there is no evidence in favor of theism. I am often re-assured that they are very open minded and would be happy to evaluate any such evidence if there was any. I agree that if indeed there is no evidence in favor of a claim that is a valid reason to decline belief in such a claim (although it by no means disproves such a claim). There is often confusion about what evidence is and what proof is. Evidence are facts or objects that support a conclusion. For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is evidence that supports the conclusion the deceased was murdered. Typically the knife and pictures of the knife in the back of the deceased would be entered into evidence. A lot of evidence is circumstantial evidence.

From Wikipedia

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

From free dictionary.com

One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence.

I will present several lines of evidence that support the belief in theism. They don't prove theism is true, they merely provide good reason to think it's true. I'm not going to be making any 'God of the gaps' arguments nor am I going to offer any hypothetical scenarios or cite the mere possibility of something being true as evidence theism is true.

[Smellyoldgit]

Ooo, you little slimey tease - we're all so eagerly waiting:-

Evidence for a Creator,

1) ....... er, that's it ....

[Drew_2013]

The first line of evidence is.

1. The fact the universe exists

That might seem like a paltry fact in support of theism. Suppose I was trying a case for murder, the first line of evidence I would produce is a dead body. After all, I couldn't accuse anyone of murder if I had no evidence anyone was deceased. If the universe didn't exist there would be no reason to invoke the existence of God. Moreover the atheist claim there is no evidence of God would actually be true. In order for anyone to even think God exists a place for humans to exist must exist. There are certain facts that must be true for anyone to think God exists. For humans to have any reason to think God might exist, we must have a place that allows us to live. There are in fact several facts and conditions that must be true in order for there to be any reason to think the existence of a Creator is true. None of those facts needs to be true for atheism to be true. Atheism doesn't require the existence of a universe to believe atheism is true. If the universe didn't exist atheism might still be false (God might exist but not have created the universe) but there would be no evidentiary reason to raise the existence of God.

2. The fact life exists

Again this might seem like a trivial fact but I don't think anyone disputes life exists. If life didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to debate whether we owe our existence to a Creator, it’s the fact life exists that raises the question whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend to cause life or even cause the existence of a universe that allows life in the first place. There is no condition that needs to true for atheism to possibly be true. There are conditions that need to occur in order for us to have a debate about whether a Creator of the universe exists. Two of those conditions are a suitable place for us to live and for life to exist. No one would postulate God doesn't exist therefore I expect a universe with life to exist. The existence of the universe and life are red flags that lead folks to question the narrative that we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend either the universe or life, yet in spite of neither the desire, the intent or the plan to create life, without knowledge of how to do it mindless forces stumbled blindly upon the formula to create life and cause a universe that allows life. Moreover if we are to believe the atheist narrative, lifeless mindless forces created something totally unlike itself...life. Yet the only way we have observed life coming about is through life. We have yet to observe life coming from non-life. The theory is that's how it came about but evidently we haven't been able to figure out using intelligence how to cause life that mindless forces are alleged to have produced without trying or knowing how.

If the universe didn't exist and life didn't exist it’s still possible a Creator who hasn't created anything might exist, but there would be no evidence to suspect there was a Creator. If so the atheist claim there is no evidence of a Creator would be true. The claim there is no evidence of a Creator is false. Now, let's be clear, the two lines of evidence I presented so far obviously doesn't persuade any atheist that God exists. However, evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because you don't agree with the conclusion. I know exactly why most atheists maintain vehemently the position there is no evidence in favor of theism. Most atheists will always deny there is evidence in favor of theism because they like to marginalize theism as strictly a faith proposition. If they were to admit there is evidence that favors the theist narrative then it’s no longer just a faith proposition that can be easily dismissed.

3. The fact sentient life exists.

As I mentioned in earlier I'm not a theist just because there are facts that comport with theism, these same facts tend to contradict the atheist narrative that the universe, life and sentient life we're not created on purpose. That however such came to be, no personal agent intended it to happen, it wasn't by plan or design.

A lot of atheists say we should look for the simpler naturalistic explanation for things such as life and sentience and we should avoid claiming a miracle happened. But which scenario is really less miraculous, that the universe, life and sentience is the result of plan and design or the result of mindless forces that didn't intend such to occur but happened anyway? Let's compare it to the existence of a computer, would it be less miraculous to say a computer is the result of design and engineering or it was the unintended by product of the laws of physics that unintentionally created a computer? Before anyone blows a gasket I know in response you're going to say it's an unfair comparison because we know a computer was designed and engineered. The point is in trying to avoid the supernatural miracle of a Creator causing the existence of life and sentience it would seem a greater miracle is being called for by claiming that mindless, lifeless forces without plan or intent caused something greater than itself to exist. Is anyone going to argue that sentience and mind isn't greater than the source it is alleged to have come from?