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 #2
I know that Church Fathers way back in time do philosophy.
The logos in John's prologue about the Word can be see
as a kind of platonic philosophy?
But all my experience of believers was that none of them did philosophy
unless challenged by somebody deep into philosophy.
What most believers seems to do to me where to be in a relation to
a religious tradition or to have an non-affiliated faith in god but
they did not do formal academic philosophy?
The logos in John's prologue about the Word can be see
as a kind of platonic philosophy?
But all my experience of believers was that none of them did philosophy
unless challenged by somebody deep into philosophy.
What most believers seems to do to me where to be in a relation to
a religious tradition or to have an non-affiliated faith in god but
they did not do formal academic philosophy?
Post #3
We are not concerned here about the particular beliefs of any religious tradition; rather, we are only addressing the (mutually exclusive) philosophical positions of theism and non-theism.ndf8th wrote:...Church Fathers way back in time do philosophy...But all my experience of believers was that none of them did philosophy...
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 #4Why not? Reserving belief for things that are demonstrated and shown to be probable is the default position. Sounds like you're basically just trying to switch the burden of proof.EduChris wrote:In this thread we are not allowed to rely on some supposed "default position of non-theism";
Why must I provide an argument for the default position of non-belief of any unsupported or proven position?rather, we must provide an actual, non-fallacious argument for non-theism.
Non-theism isn't asserted or adopted theism is. Lacking evidence or reason the rational position is to reserve belief in any and all claims.After all, if non-theism can be asserted (or adopted, or held) without evidence, then non-theism can be dismissed without evidence.
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #5Because 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?
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 #6In this universe you have invented where there is no default position then what beliefs do people hold by default? E.g., suppose Jack has lived on a deserted island all his life and never heard of leprechauns. Suppose he is rescued by a passing ship and put into a society which is dominated by believers in leprechauns. Is he required to put forth non-fallacious arguments for the non-existence of leprechauns to maintain a rational disbelief in leprechauns? Or is there some special pleading going on for claims regarding "the non-contingent, not-less-than-personal source and fount of all possibility."?EduChris wrote: 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.
Religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do not know.
Post #7
Yes formally you are right
what I see as fallacious is
the notion that theism and atheism
exists other than as academic terms
and that in reality none is theist or atheist
there only exists humans that relate in different ways
the terms theist and atheist does not
make good descriptions of actual behavior
these terms only talk about small snapshots
of the real person.
But okay I leave this thread i get it wants to be formal
and not about real persons actual behavior.
what I see as fallacious is
the notion that theism and atheism
exists other than as academic terms
and that in reality none is theist or atheist
there only exists humans that relate in different ways
the terms theist and atheist does not
make good descriptions of actual behavior
these terms only talk about small snapshots
of the real person.
But okay I leave this thread i get it wants to be formal
and not about real persons actual behavior.
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #8Perhaps you are on to something here. Can you phrase your views in some way such that Jack can provide a positive, non-fallacious argument for the philosophical viewpoint that theism need not be the case?scourge99 wrote:...suppose Jack has lived on a deserted island all his life and never heard of leprechauns. Suppose he is rescued by a passing ship and put into a society which is dominated by believers in leprechauns. Is he required to put forth non-fallacious arguments for the non-existence of leprechauns to maintain a rational disbelief in leprechauns?...
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 #9
You are welcome to contribute, or not, as you wish. But yes, this thread is not really about "beliefs," in the sense of a person's subjective mental state or psychological condition. Rather, it is about examining two mutually exclusive philosophical positions which may be adopted for sake of argument regardless of one's inner subjective psychological condition.ndf8th wrote:...But okay I leave this thread i get it wants to be formal and not about real persons actual behavior.
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 #10You seem to be dodging my question. 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? Does reason obligate them to accept it, reject it, or disbelieve it on its face?EduChris wrote:Perhaps you are on to something here. Can you phrase your views in some way such that Jack can provide a positive, non-fallacious argument for the philosophical viewpoint that theism need not be the case?scourge99 wrote:...suppose Jack has lived on a deserted island all his life and never heard of leprechauns. Suppose he is rescued by a passing ship and put into a society which is dominated by believers in leprechauns. Is he required to put forth non-fallacious arguments for the non-existence of leprechauns to maintain a rational disbelief in leprechauns?...
Religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do not know.
