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
Post #251
No, it merely demonstrates that necessity provides the causation for at least one possible world. But we are interested in the source and fount of all possible worlds. Unless you want to argue that: 1) there is only one possible world; 2) our world is that sole, solitary possible world; and 3) our universe derives from necessity alone, then non-theism must assume strictly necessary causation for all possible worlds.scourge99 wrote:...non-theism must only maintain that in at least one possible universe the source of all possibility is not less than personal. That satisfies the condition that theism need not be the case...
This is a non-sequitur. The source and fount of all possibility is the source and fount of our actualized world. If the source and fount of all possibility is not-less-than-personal, then the source and fount of our world is not-less-than-personal. Theism is not concerned primarily about the immediate causation of our world, but rather with the nature of the source and fount of all possibility. If that source is not-less-than-personal, then we may acknowledge it as such, and theism is the case.scourge99 wrote:...On the flip side, theism must assert that the source of all possibility is not less than personal AND that this universe, of all possible universes, is such a universe. Theism is NOT the claim that theism is possible. Its the claim that theism is the case...
Any way you look at it, non-theism must assume more; therefore, non-theism is less justified than theism.
Last edited by EduChris on Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:47 am, 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
Post #252
Yes, but you did it by the means I strictly precluded in the OP and subsequent posts.ytrewq wrote:...I provided a single, precise, non-fallacious, beyond-all-reasonable-doubt argument to show that theism need not be the case...
Imagine that I had said, "Can you prove that 'A' is a letter in the English alphabet, without recourse to showing me a list of the English alphabet?"
What you have done, by analogy, is simply provide the list of the English alphabet--precisely what I asked you not to do.
To comply with the 'A' issue, you might argue that the English language has a word, the indefinite article, "A," and that English words are written with letters from the English alphabet. Since the word "A" is spelled with the letter "A," it follows that "A" must be a letter in the English alphabet.
Or you could argue that letters from the Greek alphabet are always transliterated into English as letters in the English language. Since the Greek letter alpha () is transliterated into English as "A," it follows that "A" is a letter of the English language.
And so on.
In other words, you have taken the shortcut. I asked you to go the scenic route; I want to survey the landscape as fully as possible.
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 #253As I have argued elsewhere, a strictly "nothing world" is impossible. There can be no universe which does not at least have certain properties; namely, 1) Differentiation, 2) Relationality, and 3) Information. There are actually a few more properties that we can add, but the above suffice to show that a strictly "nothing universe" is impossible, though it certainly could be the case that some universe might lack quarks and leptons and gravity and all of the physical "stuff" that we find in our universe.scourge99 wrote:...God does not exist in a possible world of nothing. Therefore god is contingent?
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 #254Although you have not yet responded to my previous requests for clarification, I can at least get a start on this.scourge99 wrote:...The only question is whether this logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is not less than malevolent...Why can "not-less-than-personal" be substituted with any number of other adjectives?
My argument is interested in causation. The only two known causes are necessity and agency, and these are nouns rather than adjectives.
"Malevolent," or "heavy," or "yellow" are adjectives, but they are not causal mechanisms.
If there is malevolence, there first must be agency. We do not apply the adjective "malevolent" to an impersonal necessary cause. The laws of nature are not malevolent; they just are.
In other words, you are not simply "substituting" one adjective for another, as you have tried to argue. Rather, you have added an adjective to a noun.
Before you can apply an adjective to the noun of agency, you need to provide some argument as to why that adjective, as opposed to some other adjective, should be applied.
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 #255So leprechauns could be impossible for God to make even if he makes all the worlds that's possible for Him to make? Why would or can anything at all be necessary for an omnipotent deity to make? If none of the worlds God can or could make don't contain leprechauns then God didn't find them necessary?EduChris wrote:I agree.Artie wrote:...It's perfectly possible that your God simply didn't bother to create them in any world...
Any "possible world" may or may not be actualized. However, if there is no "possible world" (actualized or not) which contains leprechauns, then leprechauns are impossible. If there is no "possible world" (actualized or not) which fails to contain leprechauns, then leprechauns are necessary.
Maybe the problem is that you simply try to use logic to prove a personal agent and they are mutually exclusive? You have to decide which to use.
"If there is no "possible world" (actualized or not) which fails to contain leprechauns, then leprechauns are logically necessary."
or
"If there is no "possible world" (actualized or not) which fails to contain leprechauns, then God must find them necessary."
Last edited by Artie on Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #256Artie wrote:So leprechauns could be impossible for God to make even if he makes all the worlds that's possible for Him to make? Why would or can anything at all be necessary for an omnipotent deity to make? If none of the worlds God can or could make don't contain leprechauns then God didn't find them necessary?EduChris wrote:I agree.Artie wrote:...It's perfectly possible that your God simply didn't bother to create them in any world...
Any "possible world" may or may not be actualized. However, if there is no "possible world" (actualized or not) which contains leprechauns, then leprechauns are impossible. If there is no "possible world" (actualized or not) which fails to contain leprechauns, then leprechauns are necessary.
You are missing the point.. there is the 'if', and then explaining both cases.
Now, the big thing Educhis is missing in his 'in all possible world' scenario, is any evidence that in ANY possible word there is ANY 'God'.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #257I just think he confuses logic and personal agent. He doesn't seem to understand that there's no point in him trying to use epistemology or logic to arrive at the conclusion that a god or personal agent must exist when this God or personal agent can do whatever He wants and doesn't have to stick to his logic or epistemology.Goat wrote:You are missing the point.. there is the 'if', and then explaining both cases.
Now, the big thing Educhis is missing in his 'in all possible world' scenario, is any evidence that in ANY possible word there is ANY 'God'.
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #258God may be able to do whatever God whats, but epistemology deals with the types of claims we are justified in making. Non-theism assumes more than theism. By itself this doesn't mean that theism is the case, but it does mean that theism is a justified belief, since it is epistemically superior to non-theism.Artie wrote:...there's no point in him trying to use epistemology or logic to arrive at the conclusion that a god or personal agent must exist when this God or personal agent can do whatever He wants and doesn't have to stick to his logic or epistemology.
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
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 267 times
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #259Would you mind not making that claim until you deal with all my objections first?EduChris wrote: Non-theism assumes more than theism. By itself this doesn't mean that theism is the case, but it does mean that theism is a justified belief, since it is epistemically superior to non-theism.
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #260There is no crippling challenge to "omniscient" as I have defined it: no arbitrary limitation in the capacity to process and handle information.Mithrae wrote:...a crippling challenge to notions of 'God' being omniscient in the usual sense...
And that would be particularly the case if, as I have argued elsewhere, we can identify several Godelian "superpositive" properties and a few more Godelian "positive" properties.Mithrae wrote:...I don't think you've shown that it couldn't - by a long progression of extrapolation and negation from the different aspects of its own being - eventually conceive the states of being and relationships between them which make up the reality from which our sight and pain are drawn.
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
