The Causal God Gambit

[Cheerful Charlie]

Presuppositionalism. Intelligent Design. Guided evolution. The Dogma God created everything including the laws of the Universe. The writings of a jillion apologists like William Craig Lane, Ed Feser, and other true believers. People who should know better such as Francis Collins who wrote a book where he adopts guided evolution.

https://ncse.com/library-resource/many-scientists-see-gods-hand-evolution[h=1]Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution[/h]
While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows.

----

Metaphysical naturalism vs supernaturalism. The basic claims of Christianity (and other religions) indeed do predicate their entire belief systems on the existence of God who creates all and creates the rules and laws of the Universe. A jillion theologians and philosophers have wasted barrels of ink trying to support this basic claim that leaves no room for a Universe that has no need for a God.

 

[remez]

Presuppositionalism. Intelligent Design. Guided evolution. The Dogma God created everything including the laws of the Universe. The writings of a jillion apologists like William Craig Lane, Ed Feser, and other true believers. People who should know better such as Francis Collins who wrote a book where he adopts guided evolution.

https://ncse.com/library-resource/many-scientists-see-gods-hand-evolution[h=1]Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution[/h]
While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows.

----

Metaphysical naturalism vs supernaturalism. The basic claims of Christianity (and other religions) indeed do predicate their entire belief systems on the existence of God who creates all and creates the rules and laws of the Universe. A jillion theologians and philosophers have wasted barrels of ink trying to support this basic claim that leaves no room for a Universe that has no need for a God.

I heard the roar
Of your non sequitur
But did not see the proof I was looking for.

Evidence please.

 

[bilby]

Presuppositionalism. Intelligent Design. Guided evolution. The Dogma God created everything including the laws of the Universe. The writings of a jillion apologists like William Craig Lane, Ed Feser, and other true believers. People who should know better such as Francis Collins who wrote a book where he adopts guided evolution.

https://ncse.com/library-resource/many-scientists-see-gods-hand-evolution[h=1]Many Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution[/h]
While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows.

----

Metaphysical naturalism vs supernaturalism. The basic claims of Christianity (and other religions) indeed do predicate their entire belief systems on the existence of God who creates all and creates the rules and laws of the Universe. A jillion theologians and philosophers have wasted barrels of ink trying to support this basic claim that leaves no room for a Universe that has no need for a God.

I heard the roar
Of your non sequitur
But did not see the proof I was looking for.

Evidence please.

There is no evidence for any gods. Asking for evidence against gods is meaningless - There is exactly the same evidence for all gods that there is for the GSG.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Presuppositionalism. Intelligent Design. Guided evolution. The Dogma God created everything including the laws of the Universe. The writings of a jillion apologists like William Craig Lane, Ed Feser, and other true believers. People who should know better such as Francis Collins who wrote a book where he adopts guided evolution.

https://ncse.com/library-resource/many-scientists-see-gods-hand-evolutionMany Scientists See God's Hand in Evolution


While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows.

----

Metaphysical naturalism vs supernaturalism. The basic claims of Christianity (and other religions) indeed do predicate their entire belief systems on the existence of God who creates all and creates the rules and laws of the Universe. A jillion theologians and philosophers have wasted barrels of ink trying to support this basic claim that leaves no room for a Universe that has no need for a God.

I heard the roar
Of your non sequitur
But did not see the proof I was looking for.

Evidence please.

The evidence is all around us. I gave some examples. The idea that naturalism cannot be true and all depends on a creator God's actions for the Universe and it's contents to exist the way they do is a rather common claim. Theists do in fact claim this and spend a lot of ink trying to justify that claim. If you do not wish to acknowledge the fact that this is the main claim of Christianity, so be it. Arguing the point further will be like trying to get a creationist to admit Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other.

 

[Juma]

What is observable has nothing to do with our senses.
I have no sensor for radiation and yet I can observe it using tools.

Do you have any idea what a "operational definition" is?

"...Operationalize means to put into operation. Operational definitions are also used to define system states in terms of a specific, publicly accessible process of preparation or validation testing, which is repeatable at will. For example, 100 degrees Celsius may be crudely defined by describing the process of heating water at sea level until it is observed to boil. An item like a brick, or even a photograph of a brick, may be defined in terms of how it can be made. Likewise, iron may be defined in terms of the results of testing or measuring it in particular ways...."

Nope. Jargon. Still don't understand.

If i say that smurnacks exists then I also must describe, in operational terms, how you would distinguish smurnacks from other creatures. As in "they have 3 legs and transparent heads".

As in "my hat has three edges, if it hasnt got three edges it isnt my hat."

Got it?

 

[remez]

The evidence is all around us. I gave some examples.

Nice try.
You ducked your burden twice.
I'm not asking you for your general commentary on what you think are examples.
I want the evidence of the specific example you already cited in your OP.
Where is your evidence of an apologist making that specific argument in regards to quantum theory?

The idea that naturalism cannot be true and all depends on a creator God's actions for the Universe and it's contents to exist the way they do is a rather common claim.

No, that is a common naturalist's commentary on the theistic position. Completely oversimplified and devoid of understanding, as demonstrated in your OP. In your OP you asserted a specific example to demonstrate the flawed argument of an apologist. Provide some evidence that you actually observed this. I need to see the evidence in order to judge if your commentary on the issue is accurate. Or did you simply misunderstand the argument all together as Lion did? Be fair and provide the evidence.

So once again as a reminder I'll return to your OP............

We are all familiar with the concept of God of the gaps. If science doesn't know what cases X, God did it.

Yes.

But I find a similar sort of argument is made in these sort of 'technical' debates.

You factually premise your gambit with the notion that you have observed this…………….

If a scientists states that virtual particles appear randomly from physical principles, and create a Uiniverse, apologists will state, that no, God causes that to happen. Since God causes it to happen, it has a cause, and it has a beginning. I call this the Causal God Gambit.

We have a different observations.

My observations of these technical debates purports that the apologist’s response to the purposed theory either addresses the notion that the quantum vacuum is material and not nothing or addresses the notion that just because the vp’s cause cannot be presently determined does not infer that they’re uncaused. But neither of those commonly addressed notions is a gotg argument.

Until you can provide evidence of your stated observations, I’m forced to conclude that you are ASSUMING the gotg response. Thus until such evidence is provided your gambit is circular reasoning and straw man as well.

If you can provide evidence of this specific observation, then in that specific case I would agree with you that the apologist committed a gotg fallacy or depending on context, possibly leave the door open for further discussion of the second order causation notion you mentioned in post 18. But I would still question the need to rename the fallacy.

If not, then by the bogus standards established in this thread regarding the way Lion’s misinterpretation of an event was treated, aren’t you lying also?

Evidence please. Specific to your observation of apologists responding to quantum theory in the manner you commentated.

 

[abaddon]

... by the bogus standards established in this thread regarding the way Lion’s misinterpretation of an event was treated, aren’t you lying also?

How do you figure that there are “bogus standards established in this thread” where someone incorrectly attributing an argument to anyone else means they are lying? I remember seeing one “liar for Jesus” comment, but now you seem to be attributing that to all atheists in the discussion as if there’s one shared standard, one shared voice between us all. All in all, I don’t see that there are standards established in this thread that won’t apply to all persons in any philosophical discussion.

And, btw, here’s William Lane Craig talking like anyone’s being “misleading” with their terms, when it’s actually him taking exception to the terms being used in a way that doesn’t suit his own metaphysics — “out of nothing nothing comes” he declares because he believes in the necessity of a cause for the universe:



We know where a theist who objects to the use of the word “nothing” is going with those objections. It threatens the perceived “necessity” of God so he asserts a knowable (and for a believer it'd be a known) cause for absolutely everything including virtual particles. What I see in the OP is the suggestion of calling this the “causal god gambit”. It was claimed to be similar to the GOTG argument but not the same, which is the way you are treating them to be. Now if I’ve misunderstood the OP I hope he will correct me and clarify. But right now it looks like it is you who misrepresents others as having established "bogus standards" and who has misunderstood the OP’s point.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Lane claims that there cannot be an infinite chain of cause and effect, and thus there must be a first cause. God. This is what his Kalam proof really is in the final analysis.

What I was referring to is the metaphysical reasoning of people like WCL, as separate from those strictly mythological who take Genesis literally. There are two ways to do this. Trying to positively posit God as existent and cause of all, and negatively, trying to eliminate naturalism leaving God as first cause by default. Which is the approach WCL generally follows, reading his webiste and watching debates.

Both lead to nonsense. Plantinga in his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism is another good example of the negative version of the argument. Collins adoption of Guided Evolution that asserts God is the cause of evolution is an example of the first type, assuming God is the first cause.

My main complaint was against the educated "heavy hitters", not the garden variety apologists. People who should know better. ID's claims there are irreducible complexities naturalism/Darwinian evolution cannot explain.

This negative style theology is different from the God of the Gaps in that the way of arguing doesn't rely on a gap, but attempts to create a gap to save appearances.

A positive argument would be the claim that Christianity is properly basic, again, Plantinga, with it's dogmas that God creates all and is source of all. Plantinga is explicitly anti-Darwinian.

 

[Kharakov]

ID's claims there are irreducible complexities naturalism/Darwinian evolution cannot explain.

Don't they make claims about the entropy of the universe, which are refuted with some form of the "very low chance quantum fluctuation that was bound to happen in eternity" counter argument?

 

[remez]

How do you figure that there are “bogus standards established in this thread” where someone incorrectly attributing an argument to anyone else means they are lying?

The added descriptive "bogus" was only there to tone down the flat out conclusion of liar. It was not added to dismiss the proper pursuit of the burden of proof.

Also I did recognize your more civil approach, you seemed to treat it more as a mistake. Others flat out referred to it as a lie. Without complete knowledge of intent I lean towards mistake. I was attempting to hold cc the the same standard set by you and the others, while at the same time trying to tone down the liar assertion.

I don't think either lied, but I do have a strong sense that cc never observed the apologist argue against the notion of quantum with such a blatantly fallacious argument. Just like you didn't believe SC argued in the fashion cited by lion. I suspect that cc provided his incorrect interpretation of the argument rather than what was actually argued. So in order to determine cc's gambit correctly I asked him the provide the actual argument. In the same fashion you and others challenged Lion.

And, btw, here’s William Lane Craig talking like anyone’s being “misleading” with their terms, when it’s actually him taking exception to the terms being used in a way that doesn’t suit his own metaphysics — “out of nothing nothing comes” he declares because he believes in the necessity of a cause for the universe:

That is precisely what I suggested happened.

My observations of these technical debates purports that the apologist’s response to the purposed theory either addresses the notion that the quantum vacuum is material and not nothing or addresses the notion that just because the vp’s cause cannot be presently determined does not infer that they’re uncaused. But neither of those commonly addressed notions is a gotg argument.

But that is not the way cc said it went down. To be fair, perhaps this is not the debate he was referencing.

Second point.... the debate of terms is critical and important here for both sides. For WLC, I assume was presenting his version of the KCA which is an inductive argument and logically inherent to the debate is a discussion of terms. Precisely here I think WLC was addressing a counter that is often offered against the premises 1 and 2 of the KCA from the notion of quantum theory.

Third point. Is it rational to dismiss his point based upon your interpretation of his intent. What if your interpretation of his intent is wrong? I believe it is. He is trying to argue FOR the necessity of a cause for the universe not FROM the necessity of a cause for the universe. The latter would be circular reasoning.

We know where a theist who objects to the use of the word “nothing” is going with those objections.

So I ask you then .... Is the material quantum vacuum nothing or materially something?
I'm not trying to start a debate on this point ..... just wondering what your position on this point is. I think I my position is clear in the question.

It threatens the perceived “necessity” of God so he asserts a knowable (and for a believer it'd be a known) cause for absolutely everything including virtual particles.

Clearly that is not his assertion here. He is challenging the definition of a term being offered as a counter against a premise of his argument FOR (not FROM) the existence of God. He is not asserting that because God exists then the unknown cause of vp's are caused by God. That would be a gotg fallacy. Remember he is defending an argument FOR God not FROM God. So I assert you have misinterpreted argument here.

Think about what you are inferring here. Any ARGUMENT attempting to answer the call for evidence of God's existence is automatically dismissed from the start because its God you are trying to prove the existence of. You seem to have some kind of circular skepticism "gambit" going on here........

You can't argue FOR the existence of something if you have reasons to believe that something actually exists. You can only argue for the existence of objects that you don't believe exist.
But.....
Wait that means only you skeptics can argue for God's existence.

So assuming I don't have your skepticism correct please point out where I have it incorrect.

 

[remez]

Lane claims that there cannot be an infinite chain of cause and effect, and thus there must be a first cause. God. This is what his Kalam proof really is in the final analysis.

I submit you have misinterpreted the argument then.

No, that is not really the final analysis, that is just one piece of philosophical evidence he offers to support premise 2.

What I was referring to is the metaphysical reasoning of people like WCL, as separate from those strictly mythological who take Genesis literally.

But that would separate WLC from the presupposionalists that you lumped together in your last post. Please clarify.

There are two ways to do this. Trying to positively posit God as existent and cause of all, and negatively, trying to eliminate naturalism leaving God as first cause by default. Which is the approach WCL generally follows, reading his webiste and watching debates.

So all you are asserting here is that you don't like his methodology.

The argument itself is positively asserted. It is in the defense of the argument that he points out the errors of the purposed counters. If that seems too negative for you then how do you suggest he proceed to defend the argument from opposition?

A positive argument would be the claim that Christianity is properly basic,

That is your opinion and properly basic beliefs have already been dismissed as ludicrous.

Please point specifically to where the KCA itself is negative.
again.......

If a scientists states that virtual particles appear randomly from physical principles, and create a Uiniverse, apologists will state, that no, God causes that to happen. Since God causes it to happen, it has a cause, and it has a beginning. I call this the Causal God Gambit.

Please provide evidence that this actually occurred.
Fourth request.
Be Fair.

 

[blastula]

I have been reading through some of William Craig Lane's arguments about the Kalam argument, Multiuniverse, virtual particles et al, and had a bit of a thought about Kalam sort of arguments.

We are all familiar with the concept of God of the gaps. If science doesn't know what cases X, God did it.

But I find a similar sort of argument is made in these sort of 'technical' debates. If a scientists states that virtual particles appear randomly from physical principles, and create a Uiniverse, apologists will state, that no, God causes that to happen. Since God causes it to happen, it has a cause, and it has a beginning. I call this the Causal God Gambit.

It's an assertion that attempts to shift the burden of proof to the atheist. No matter what the materialists offers as reasons to think of the Universe in a metaphysical naturalist manner, one can always play the god gambit and claim God is the cause. The problem is that one can just as easily assert that it's fairies or many Gods or no God at all, if we just make assertions. And try to shift the burden of proof.

So in the end, the Kalam arguments seems to rely on a long, tedious, longwinded march to the Causal God gambit. A loaded assertion that in the end, begs the question.

I named it that causal God gambit in light of Schopenhauer's dictum that all logical errors should be given a name so that we may easily recognize them when we meet them. It's a form of the fallacy of argument by definition.

To assert God is the cause of all things, one needs to demonstrate that God actually does exist, and causes anything at all. assuming that is not evidence.

And what all those arguments could prove, if premises accepted, is that there is a cause, not that there is a god.

 

[abaddon]

So I ask you then .... Is the material quantum vacuum nothing or materially something?
I'm not trying to start a debate on this point ..... just wondering what your position on this point is. I think I my position is clear in the question.

It's a "something". IMV the word "nothing" can just be dropped except in its everyday use as in “nothing in the box, it’s empty”. It has to relate to something to be meaningful so anyone, theologian or physicist, is being silly if they ever use the word in a different way. My own guess is that there always (whatever "always" is) has been 'somethings' due to the absurdity of an absolute nothingness as an alternative to existence but I see no good reason that those 'somethings' can be summed up as God or must necessarily turn out to be God.

Think about what you are inferring here. Any ARGUMENT attempting to answer the call for evidence of God's existence is automatically dismissed from the start because its God you are trying to prove the existence of. You seem to have some kind of circular skepticism "gambit" going on here........

You can't argue FOR the existence of something if you have reasons to believe that something actually exists. You can only argue for the existence of objects that you don't believe exist.
But.....
Wait that means only you skeptics can argue for God's existence.

So assuming I don't have your skepticism correct please point out where I have it incorrect.

I'm ok with treating God as an hypothesis and I also presented an instance of a scientist doing that, and thus I made a point of how naturalism doesn't need to dismiss God's existence "from the start".

 

[remez]

again.......

If a scientists states that virtual particles appear randomly from physical principles, and create a Uiniverse, apologists will state, that no, God causes that to happen. Since God causes it to happen, it has a cause, and it has a beginning. I call this the Causal God Gambit.

Please provide evidence that this actually occurred.
Fourth request.
Be Fair.

Couldn't find one couldya?

Thus another straw man!

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

again.......

Please provide evidence that this actually occurred.
Fourth request.
Be Fair.

Couldn't find one couldya?

Thus another straw man!

You are getting to be a bit of a bore. The ancient answer is that God is transcendent and creates all. Nature is a second order set of laws created by God. As per William of Okham. And others. Naturally, any modern findings of science are said to be caused by God. Nature does not exist along side god, unrelated to God's existence.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/arguing-god-from-first-cause-robert-lawrence-kuhn

Dr. William Craig Lane
Well, for example, there’s the so-called argument from contingency that has been defended by various philosophers such as Leibniz and others, and it would go something like this: Anything that exists has a reason or an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in some external cause. Now, if the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation would be God, a transcendent being beyond space and time. The universe is something that exists, obviously, and therefore it would follow that the universe has an explanation of its existence and that that explanation is God. That would be a kind of quick and easy summary of the basic premises of the contingency argument. And then one would need to talk about why one believes those premises to be true.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/arguing-god-from-first-cause-robert-lawrence-kuhn#ixzz4X18nPm1m
​

 

[remez]

Couldn't find one couldya?

Thus another straw man!

You are getting to be a bit of a bore. The ancient answer is that God is transcendent and creates all. Nature is a second order set of laws created by God. As per William of Okham. And others. Naturally, any modern findings of science are said to be caused by God. Nature does not exist along side god, unrelated to God's existence.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/arguing-god-from-first-cause-robert-lawrence-kuhn

Dr. William Craig Lane
Well, for example, there’s the so-called argument from contingency that has been defended by various philosophers such as Leibniz and others, and it would go something like this: Anything that exists has a reason or an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in some external cause. Now, if the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation would be God, a transcendent being beyond space and time. The universe is something that exists, obviously, and therefore it would follow that the universe has an explanation of its existence and that that explanation is God. That would be a kind of quick and easy summary of the basic premises of the contingency argument. And then one would need to talk about why one believes those premises to be true.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/arguing-god-from-first-cause-robert-lawrence-kuhn#ixzz4X18nPm1m
​

Thank You. That is what I thought you were inferring. I just wanted to be sure. This actual conversation was never observed as stated in your OP. As I suspected it was your interpretation of the common debate. Remember the issues with lion and sc. Now that you have finally clarified where your inspiration for the apologists response came from, I can now address your hypothetical.......Gambit....

If a scientists states that virtual particles appear randomly from physical principles, and create a Uiniverse,

The actual response would have been "I have a few questions?", because this is an incomplete thought. They would ask for further info.

Now just to play along with you .......
I assumed the rest of the info....

From the vp side I assumed you were referring to the common banter that "because vp's appear at random out of nothing of course inferring they are uncaused. Leads to uncaused universe from nothing. Which can support a MV theory. For ease here lets call it the vp theory aka VPT.

Now you purport.....

apologists will state, that no, God causes that to happen. Since God causes it to happen, it has a cause, and it has a beginning. I call this the Causal God Gambit.

....as that the apologist response to the VPT is the common pedagogy of the LGA only, without any further support. Thus causing the apologist position to appear weak and silly by circular reasoning. That is the straw man. And it does seem intentional because of the measures you took to skip many of the important terms.

To the VPT an apologist would address the concepts of quantum vacuum not being nothing but a material something. Also we would argue that your random appearance does now infer being uncaused. From there likely the BGV theorem would be discussed as well. We would not have introduced the reasoning of the LGA here as you purported. The reasoning does not address the context.

Now what fits the context is your prior notion (which seems to have grown recently) that a presuppositionalist was responding to your crafted hypothetical. And WLC is not a presuppositionalist.

So.... as you set it up. It was a STRAW MAN. For I have seen this hypo of yours actually debated several times. Never have I seen the apologist (specifically WLC) respond in the fashion you have presented. And I gave you half a dozen chances to actually provide a link an actual debate where a apologist actually responded only using the logic of the LCA. NEVER HAPPENED.

You once accused me of presenting a false charge so that I could negatively accuse you of scientism. You chastised me for being negative and called it my foil. Yet I never raised that foil.

Your foil appears to be..... label all theists presuppositionalists. And you continually raise it. On guard.

Your gambit is stabbing a straw man. I'll let you name it though.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

No straw man. The Christian God supposedly created all de nova. All Christian theology starts with this proposition.

God is presupposed, his creation of all is presupposed, his omnipotence is presupposed. Also Islam and other religions besides.

Really, how many times do I have to point out this fact? Around this proposition accrete numerous other claims derived from that initial claim. Do you understand this? Yes. No. Pick one.

 

[remez]

No straw man. The Christian God supposedly created all de nova. All Christian theology starts with this proposition.

God is presupposed, his creation of all is presupposed, his omnipotence is presupposed. Also Islam and other religions besides.

Really, how many times do I have to point out this fact? Around this proposition accrete numerous other claims derived from that initial claim. Do you understand this? Yes. No. Pick one.

Now you are just getting desperate.......

The Christian God supposedly created all de nova. All Christian theology starts with this proposition.

Sorry Charlie.
Again no.
As have have shown you many times.
Natural Theology argues FOR God's existence not FROM God's presupposed existence.
Here again....

Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology, is a type of theology that provides arguments for the existence of God based on reason and ordinary experience of nature. This distinguishes it from revealed theology, which is based on scripture and/or religious experiences, and also from transcendental theology, which is based on a priori reasoning.
..........
Natural theology is thus a type of philosophy, the object of which is explanation of the nature of the gods, or of one supreme God. For monotheistic religions, this principally involves arguments about the attributes or non-attributes of God, and especially the existence of God, using arguments that do not involve recourse to supernatural revelation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology

or this one which is a amazon book review of "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" on common sense atheism.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1908 thanks Luke.

How about another atheist....here.............

A very common trend in theology is known as natural theology. Whereas the default religious perspective accepts the truth of the existence of God and basic dogmas handed down by tradition, natural theology assumes that one can begin from a default position of no particular religious belief and argues to the truth of at least some (already accepted) religious propositions.
Thus, natural theology involves starting from the facts of nature or discoveries of science and using them, along with philosophical arguments, to prove that God exists, what God is like, and so forth. Human reason and science are treated as the foundations of theism, not revelation or scripture.
http://atheism.about.com/od/theology/a/natural.htm

I could cite many more because, Natural Theology actually exists and predates Jesus.

You know how to use google look it up. Make your case that Natural Theology does not exist and save your gambit.

To deny the existence of Natural Theology is to be irrationally desperate.
On Guard.
Your Gambit is still stabbing a straw man.

 

[Lion IRC]

The observer of the Garden of Eden doesn't presuppose it was created.
Neither do we presume it was created de nova.
The observer simply wonders if it has always existed or was there was a prior cause of its existence.
And if so, was that cause deliberate or spontaneous.

 

[Juma]

Now you are just getting desperate.......

The Christian God supposedly created all de nova. All Christian theology starts with this proposition.

Sorry Charlie.
Again no.
As have have shown you many times.
Natural Theology argues FOR God's existence not FROM God's presupposed existence.
Here again....

Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology, is a type of theology that provides arguments for the existence of God based on reason and ordinary experience of nature. This distinguishes it from revealed theology, which is based on scripture and/or religious experiences, and also from transcendental theology, which is based on a priori reasoning.
..........
Natural theology is thus a type of philosophy, the object of which is explanation of the nature of the gods, or of one supreme God. For monotheistic religions, this principally involves arguments about the attributes or non-attributes of God, and especially the existence of God, using arguments that do not involve recourse to supernatural revelation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology

or this one which is a amazon book review of "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" on common sense atheism.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1908 thanks Luke.

How about another atheist....here.............

A very common trend in theology is known as natural theology. Whereas the default religious perspective accepts the truth of the existence of God and basic dogmas handed down by tradition, natural theology assumes that one can begin from a default position of no particular religious belief and argues to the truth of at least some (already accepted) religious propositions.
Thus, natural theology involves starting from the facts of nature or discoveries of science and using them, along with philosophical arguments, to prove that God exists, what God is like, and so forth. Human reason and science are treated as the foundations of theism, not revelation or scripture.
http://atheism.about.com/od/theology/a/natural.htm

I could cite many more because, Natural Theology actually exists and predates Jesus.

You know how to use google look it up. Make your case that Natural Theology does not exist and save your gambit.

To deny the existence of Natural Theology is to be irrationally desperate.
On Guard.
Your Gambit is still stabbing a straw man.

Even "natural theology" assumes what it tries to prove.
The bottom line is always this: where is the evidens? Sincenoone have provided any evidens whatsoever, the mere mentioning of god is premature.