Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?

[EduChris]

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.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Again you are simply shifting the burden of proof where it logically does not belong.

I think that this is more or less acknowledged in the OP. Given that this discussion is based upon a fallacious premise, I'm not sure what the point of the exercise is intended to be. It is steered towards the conclusions of "you can't prove that God doesn't exist", but I think most would acknowledge this trivial point regardless, and we already have concepts like Russel's Teapot to address such concerns. The inability to definitively disprove all possible god concepts is why most atheists find agnostic atheism a preferable position to gnostic atheism.

[Haven]

Also, as others have pointed out, nontheism is the default position, as it is an expression of skepticism to the claim "theism is true." The burden of proof is on the theist to argue for theism, not the nontheist to debunk it.

Consider this example:

Two college students are sitting in the student union arguing about metaphysical reality. Holden claims "fairies exist." Kaylee is skeptical of that claim, and says "fairies existing need not be the case." Is the burden of proof on Holden to establish that fairies exist, or on Kaylee to argue that they do not? Which person has the burden of proof in this scenario? The typical academic position is that the onus is on the one making the positive claim.

[Morphine]

I 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."

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?

Now I see what you're asking for.
But I don't see the point. Any idea put forth would need just as much evidence for it as we demand for theism.
For the heck of it, I'll just say it was a magical dragon named Armani who created everything. The evidence is in everything we see. The ocean, the sky, the sun, us... Though his only ability is to create worlds. He assigns magical birds called Lzipls to create the different species that roam the planet. But they're all invisible...

[dontknow]

Why is it that theism need not be the case?

Because the theist has not met his burden of proof to justify the claim that theism is the case.

Do we have any evidence or argument that non-theistic universes are possible?

We don't need any cause the burden of proof is on the theist making the positive assertion that 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?

We don't need any to reject the theistic claim.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Let's assume for sake of argument that if non-theism were the objective reality...

Until one can show there's a god, non-theism is the objective reality.

...we would be able to offer some positive and non-fallacious argument to support the philosophical viewpoint known as non-theism.

Support here would involve examining the claims put forth by theists. There are no atheists until one of 'em challenges a theist's claim.

>snip definitionalizing<

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.

'Cause it's just one more order of goofy to declare there's gods, when we ain't even found bigfoot yet.

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.

I'll leave it to the mods to make such a ruling, though have no immediate objection to this notion.

After all, if non-theism can be asserted (or adopted, or held) without evidence, then non-theism can be dismissed without evidence.

The evidence for non-theism here would be the complete and utter inability of the theist to show their god is 'up there'.

[EduChris]

...Consider this example..."fairies exist."...Which person has the burden of proof in this scenario?...

Let's think of another example. A homicide detective is charged with investigating a possible crime scene. The detective must decide where--on the spectrum that runs from "Premeditated Murder" to "Accident" to "Natural Causes--she will finally mark her professional determination. The detective cannot claim ignorance--she cannot check the box for "Unknown" or "Undetermined"--until after she has produced whatever positive arguments she can for each possibility (running from "Premeditated Murder" to "Accident" to "Natural Causes").

In other words, the detective must perform due diligence. She can't just mark every possible crime scene as "Undetermined" or "Inconclusive" and then go home to take a nap. She must perform her professional duty. "Undetermined" is a conclusion, rather than a starting point. The starting point for the detective is, "I will make every effort to determine the cause of death."

Or thinking back to the original Star Trek series...Remember when Kirk would ask the computer a question? The computer would not respond with "I don't know" to the question; rather, the computer would respond with, "Working...working...working..." and then finally come up with some answer. The computer's final answer might be, "I don't know," but that has to be the conclusion, not the starting point. The starting point is, "I will gather all of the evidence I can and formulate all of the arguments I can for each possibility, and then I will make a determination."

[EduChris]

...Here are a few...

I counted two arguments. Congratulations! You are the first and only person to even attempt to provide an "on-topic" response to the OP. I haven't the time right now to evaluate your arguments, but I will do so and respond when I can. In the meantime, I hope more such arguments will be presented on behalf of the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."

[LiamOS]

If consciousness in humans can be shown to be entirely the product of matter-energy interactions, no other form of consciousness is known. Given this, one would logically default to the position that anything preceding matter cannot be conscious, which gives us the conclusion that God, in any meaningful sense, is not conscious, and therefore Theism is not the case.

[EduChris]

...There's a very simple argument for non-theism... "There is no definitive evidence for theism."

Although I think you've already acknowledged that your answer is not "on-topic" for this thread, I will respond to it for the sake of others.

Given that we have eschewed the notion of an initial "default position," the argument that "non-theism is the case by virtue of the fact that theism has not been proven" can be easily countered with, "theism is the case by virtue of the fact that non-theism has not been proven."

Thus, the argument you have given amounts to "he said, she said," and this is not a valid (i.e., non-fallacious) argument on behalf of the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."

[Nilloc James]

Theism is a wasteful hypothesis?