Let's assume for sake of argument that if non-theism were the objective reality, we would be able to offer some positive and non-fallacious argument to support the philosophical viewpoint known as non-theism.
In this discussion, we will use the following definitions:
Theism: the philosophical viewpoint that the non-contingent source and fount of all possibility is not less than personal.
Non-theism: the philosophical viewpoint that theism need not be the case.
God: the non-contingent, not-less-than-personal source and fount of all possibility.
Our universe and our selves constitute the evidence, and we must provide arguments as to why, given this evidence, we should adopt the philosophical viewpoint known as non-theism. In this thread we are not allowed to rely on some supposed "default position of non-theism"; rather, we must provide an actual, non-fallacious argument for non-theism.
After all, if non-theism can be asserted (or adopted, or held) without evidence, then non-theism can be dismissed without evidence.
Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Moderator: Moderators
Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #1I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #11Far from dodging your question, I'm inviting you to contribute your thoughts in accordance with the terms of the OP.scourge99 wrote:...You seem to be dodging my question...
I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #12I'm specifically asking for clarification on the terms of the OP. You are dodging.
Religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do not know.
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #13My OP says nothing at all about the "existence of things," but rather attempts to evaluate the merits of a particular philosophical viewpoint.scourge99 wrote:...In this universe you propose where there is no default position then what position does a person hold when they first encounter a new claim regarding the existence of something?...
Here we are concerned with not with "acceptance" or "rejection" or "disbelief" or any such thing; rather, we are attempting to determine whether any positive, non-fallacious argument can be formulated on behalf of a particular philosophical viewpoint.scourge99 wrote:...Does reason obligate them to accept it, reject it, or disbelieve it on its face?
Last edited by EduChris on Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #14Non-theism isn't a position, it's the absence of adopting a particular position: theism. Non-theism, is as much of a "position" as the absence of believing in big foot, the lock ness monster, magical fairies, alien abductions, and flying spaghetti teapots are "positions."EduChris wrote:Because the point of this thread is to determine whether there are any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism.dontknow wrote:...Why must I provide an argument...
It sounds like you are admitting that you cannot provide any non-fallacious arguments for the philosophical position of non-theism. Is that correct?
As I said before you're clearly just trying to shift the burden of proof by falsely claiming the lack of a position to be a position.
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #15If you care to contribute an argument here on behalf of the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case," please feel free to do so.dontknow wrote:...Non-theism isn't a position, it's the absence of adopting a particular position...
I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #16The absence of belief in a God isn't a "position" or "philosophical viewpoint"; it's the rejection of a particular philosophical viewpoint namely the one that asserts a God exists.EduChris wrote:My OP says nothing at all about the "existence of things," but rather attempts to evaluate the merits of a particular philosophical viewpoint.
The non-theist need not assert there is no God, he only refrains from adopting an asserted viewpoint that there is a God.
Again you are simply shifting the burden of proof where it logically does not belong.
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #17The problem is you are attempting phrase it to make it sound like the absence of adopting a particular position is a position. It's not. If I say "I have not seen compelling evidence and reason to accept the position that a God exists" I am not taking or stating any philosophical position here. I have only rejected a particular position.
You're wording of non-theism being "theism need not be the case" is precisely the problem with your question as it makes it look like a non-position is a position.
-
Haven
Post #18
Here are a few:
The Evolutionary Argument Against Theism:
This argument refutes theistic religions by showing that evolution is inconsistent with Gods character, and that since evolution is true, God is not the creator of life.
Specifically, the argument shows that evolution entails lesser-making properties, and that it is logically impossible for God to use lesser-making properties to create life.
To drive this home, Ill lay out a formal syllogism outlining the argument. First, though, its important to define the relevant terms:
God is defined as (more-or-less) the perfect being of classical theism: omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-located), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (all-kind), and maximally great (possessing all great-making properties in their maximum amounts and lacking all lesser-making properties).
Evolution is defined as the neo-Darwinian model predicated on the change of allele frequencies across generations due to random mutation and natural and/or sexual selection. This more-or-less rules out theistic evolution, although positing theistic evolution to rebut this argument would be question-begging because it would assume God created through evolution, when that is exactly the thing in question.
Great-making property is defined as any property which it is better to have than not have, such as kindness, love, life, knowledge, health, power, happiness, etc.
Lesser-making property is defined as any property which it is better to not have than to have, such as sickness, weakness, ignorance, cruelty, death, pain, etc.
Maximally great is defined as possessing all possible great-making properties in their maximal amounts, and possessing no lesser-making properties.
Life is defined as (a) sentient, biological organism(s)
Now for the syllogism:
Premise 1: God is said to be a perfect being (as defined above).
Premise 2: God desires to create life.
Premise 3: Following (1), God, as a perfect being, would create life by a method that entailed no lesser-making properties.
Premise 4: Evolution, in order to function, depends on lesser-making properties such as death and pain.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, God would not create life via evolution.
Premise 5: Evolution is true.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, God did not create life.
In addition, because the worlds major theisms (Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity)"as well as classical philosophical theism"claim God is, in fact, the creator of life, its rational to conclude that these viewpoints are false and, in light of evolution, to adopt another viewpoint, such as atheism or non-interactionist deism. This further extends the argument, following Conclusion 2:
Premise 6: The worlds major theistic religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam, as well as classical philosophical theism, all claim that God created life.
Conclusion 3: Following Conclusion 2, the worlds major theistic religions and classical philosophical theism are false.
If you object to the argument, you can bypass it in one of four ways:
By denying evolution. This is irrational, however, because the theory of evolution is supported by a tremendous amount of biological evidence. It is every bit as well-supported as gravity and germ theory, and so the person who denies it is being unreasonable.
By denying that God is perfect (as defined above). This is also unsatisfactory for the believer, because God is specifically defined by all major theistic religions as a perfect being.
By asserting that God would, in fact, create by a method that entailed lesser-making properties. This seems incoherent, because causing lesser-making properties to obtain is itself a negation of maximal greatness, again leaving us with a ungodly God.
By accepting value nihilism; that is, denying the concept of great-making and lesser-making properties altogether. This is probably the believers best shot at defeating the argument, but taking this route is philosophically controversial and would still leave the issue of why an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent God would use evolution.
The Problem of Natural Evil:
Since most people are familiar with the problem of natural evil, I'll just give a quick syllogism for this argument:
P1: God is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent
P2: An omniscient god would know how to prevent all natural evil (fires, floods, diseases, and other natural disasters that cause gratuitous suffering to innocent sentient beings)
P3: An omnipotent god would have the power to stop all natural evil
P4: An omnipresent god would be everywhere to stop all natural evil
P5: An omnibenevolent god would want to stop all natural evil
P6: Natural evil exists
Conclusion 1: P6 conflicts P2-P5.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, either natural evil does not exist or an omnimax god does not exist
P7: Natural evil does, in fact, exist in the real world.
Conclusion 3: Therefore, an omnimax god does not exist.
The Evolutionary Argument Against Theism:
This argument refutes theistic religions by showing that evolution is inconsistent with Gods character, and that since evolution is true, God is not the creator of life.
Specifically, the argument shows that evolution entails lesser-making properties, and that it is logically impossible for God to use lesser-making properties to create life.
To drive this home, Ill lay out a formal syllogism outlining the argument. First, though, its important to define the relevant terms:
God is defined as (more-or-less) the perfect being of classical theism: omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-located), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnibenevolent (all-kind), and maximally great (possessing all great-making properties in their maximum amounts and lacking all lesser-making properties).
Evolution is defined as the neo-Darwinian model predicated on the change of allele frequencies across generations due to random mutation and natural and/or sexual selection. This more-or-less rules out theistic evolution, although positing theistic evolution to rebut this argument would be question-begging because it would assume God created through evolution, when that is exactly the thing in question.
Great-making property is defined as any property which it is better to have than not have, such as kindness, love, life, knowledge, health, power, happiness, etc.
Lesser-making property is defined as any property which it is better to not have than to have, such as sickness, weakness, ignorance, cruelty, death, pain, etc.
Maximally great is defined as possessing all possible great-making properties in their maximal amounts, and possessing no lesser-making properties.
Life is defined as (a) sentient, biological organism(s)
Now for the syllogism:
Premise 1: God is said to be a perfect being (as defined above).
Premise 2: God desires to create life.
Premise 3: Following (1), God, as a perfect being, would create life by a method that entailed no lesser-making properties.
Premise 4: Evolution, in order to function, depends on lesser-making properties such as death and pain.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, God would not create life via evolution.
Premise 5: Evolution is true.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, God did not create life.
In addition, because the worlds major theisms (Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity)"as well as classical philosophical theism"claim God is, in fact, the creator of life, its rational to conclude that these viewpoints are false and, in light of evolution, to adopt another viewpoint, such as atheism or non-interactionist deism. This further extends the argument, following Conclusion 2:
Premise 6: The worlds major theistic religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam, as well as classical philosophical theism, all claim that God created life.
Conclusion 3: Following Conclusion 2, the worlds major theistic religions and classical philosophical theism are false.
If you object to the argument, you can bypass it in one of four ways:
By denying evolution. This is irrational, however, because the theory of evolution is supported by a tremendous amount of biological evidence. It is every bit as well-supported as gravity and germ theory, and so the person who denies it is being unreasonable.
By denying that God is perfect (as defined above). This is also unsatisfactory for the believer, because God is specifically defined by all major theistic religions as a perfect being.
By asserting that God would, in fact, create by a method that entailed lesser-making properties. This seems incoherent, because causing lesser-making properties to obtain is itself a negation of maximal greatness, again leaving us with a ungodly God.
By accepting value nihilism; that is, denying the concept of great-making and lesser-making properties altogether. This is probably the believers best shot at defeating the argument, but taking this route is philosophically controversial and would still leave the issue of why an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent God would use evolution.
The Problem of Natural Evil:
Since most people are familiar with the problem of natural evil, I'll just give a quick syllogism for this argument:
P1: God is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent
P2: An omniscient god would know how to prevent all natural evil (fires, floods, diseases, and other natural disasters that cause gratuitous suffering to innocent sentient beings)
P3: An omnipotent god would have the power to stop all natural evil
P4: An omnipresent god would be everywhere to stop all natural evil
P5: An omnibenevolent god would want to stop all natural evil
P6: Natural evil exists
Conclusion 1: P6 conflicts P2-P5.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, either natural evil does not exist or an omnimax god does not exist
P7: Natural evil does, in fact, exist in the real world.
Conclusion 3: Therefore, an omnimax god does not exist.
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #19I agree with you, which is why I am not asking you to defend an absence of belief. Rather, I am asking you (and others) to present a non-fallacious argument on behalf of the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."dontknow wrote:...The absence of belief in a God isn't a "position" or "philosophical viewpoint"...
Why is it that theism need not be the case? Do we have any evidence or argument that non-theistic universes are possible? If so, do we have any evidence or argument that a non-theistic universe is at least as likely as a theistic universe?
I am a work in process; I do not claim absolute knowledge or absolute certainty; I simply present the best working hypothesis I have at the moment, always pending new information and further insight.
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � σ ς τ υ φ χ ψ ω - Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Μ � Ξ Ο ΠΡ Σ Τ Υ Φ Χ Ψ Ω
