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 #41
I disagree that there is any fallacy involved in: 1) putting our thinking caps on; 2) foregoing any real or imagined "default position"; and 3) actively formulating as many non-fallacious arguments as we can for the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...the entire discussion is based upon a fallacious premise...
Suppose at the end of this discussion we discover that we have come up with X-number of non-fallacious arguments for the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case." Why should we find this conclusion problematic? We set out to find some arguments, and we discovered that there are at least X-number of such arguments. What's the problem with that?Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...and any potential conclusions drawn from it must be considered in light of this.
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 #42Ok well in that case if the only question is to formulate an argument for "theism need not be the case" then I can argue that the fact that there are alternatives is sufficient.EduChris wrote:The scenario simply asks us to: 1) put our thinking caps on; 2) forego any real or imagined "default position"; and 3) actively formulate as many non-fallacious arguments as we can for the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."Justin108 wrote:...Your scenario is a fallacy in itself...
Are you able to conform to the parameters of the OP? If so, what positive argument(s) can you provide in support of the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case"?
In other words, if I can go left then I need not go right.
If there can exist a universe without god, there need not be a god.
If there can exist a god that is not personal, there need not be a god that is personal.
None of these are fallacious as each can possibly be the case and since they can be the case, theism need not be the case
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #43I don't understand maybe you can give us an example of a positive argument in support of the philosophical position that "fairyism" need not the case? It might help to point us in the right direction.EduChris wrote:The scenario simply asks us to: 1) put our thinking caps on; 2) forego any real or imagined "default position"; and 3) actively formulate as many non-fallacious arguments as we can for the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."Justin108 wrote:...Your scenario is a fallacy in itself...
Are you able to conform to the parameters of the OP? If so, what positive argument(s) can you provide in support of the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case"?
-
Fuzzy Dunlop
- Guru
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am
Post #44
When you forgo the default position, you are committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.EduChris wrote:I disagree that there is any fallacy involved in: 1) putting our thinking caps on; 2) foregoing any real or imagined "default position"; and 3) actively formulating as many non-fallacious arguments as we can for the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...the entire discussion is based upon a fallacious premise...
You're taking the default position, pretending for the sake of argument that it isn't the default position, and then asking for arguments in favour of the default position. When it turns out that x=0, what exactly will have been discovered? We might learn that you can't prove that God doesn't exist, but we already knew that.EduChris wrote:Suppose at the end of this discussion we discover that we have come up with X-number of non-fallacious arguments for the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case." Why should we find this conclusion problematic? We set out to find some arguments, and we discovered that there are at least X-number of such arguments. What's the problem with that?Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...and any potential conclusions drawn from it must be considered in light of this.
-
Nilloc James
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1696
- Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 1:53 am
- Location: Canada
Post #45
It posits the necessity of an entire set of objects (the supernatural) and all their implications to explain the existence of the physical. That demands more entities and thus decreases it's probability as opposed to a naturalistic explanation when we already know the natural exists.EduChris wrote:As it stands, that appears to be an assertion (at least if we omit the question mark). Is there any way that you can flesh out the assertion, so that it takes the form of a valid argument? Why is theism wasteful? Wasteful as compared to what? Why should we think that theism ought not be wasteful (in whatever sense you seem to think it might be wasteful)?Nilloc James wrote:Theism is a wasteful hypothesis?
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #46
I haven't read this whole thread, so you'll have to excuse my reply to your post here from page 1.EduChris wrote: 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.
My position is as follows:
We, as humans, do not currently possess sufficient evidence to rule out a generic view of spirituality, mysticism, or even a "theistic philosophy" for certain types of Gods.
So I personally do not support the blanket dismissal of all *theological philosophies.
*Disclaimer: I do reject all of theology when the term is specifically being defined to only apply to Abrahamic religions as I have actually seen it defined in various dictionaries.
From my perspective the outrageous claims made by the ancient Hebrews concerning a jealous egotistical God who would harm people for merely not believing in him is beyond the rational, and is itself a blatant contradiction of what this God is supposed to be representing (i.e. the ultimately righteousness and wisdom).
So from my perspective any religion based upon these Hebrew fables is necessarily without merit due to its own self-contradictions and self-inconsistencies.
However, when it comes to other potential ideas of a mystical or spiritual essence to reality, then I support that there do indeed exist philosophies along those lines that cannot be dismissed based upon any current knowledge that we as humans possess.
And this includes everything that we have learned about the physical nature of our universe to date.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Post #47
Okay, we will excuse your off-topic post.Divine Insight wrote:...I haven't read this whole thread, so you'll have to excuse my reply...
If you wish to make an on-topic reply, please provide any non-fallacious argument in support of the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case." We understand that some people imagine that non-theism is the "default position" which needs no argumentation. Be that as it may, it is not relevant on this thread; here we are simply attempting to perform the due diligence necessary to discover any and all non-fallacious arguments in support of the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."
Note: on this thread, theism is defined as the philosophical viewpoint that the non-contingent source and fount of all possibility is not less than personal.
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 #48
Theism posits no additional entities; instead, theism simply posits that the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is not-less-than-personal.Nilloc James wrote:...[theism] posits the necessity of an entire set of objects (the supernatural) and all their implications to explain the existence of the physical. That demands more entities and thus decreases it's probability as opposed to a naturalistic explanation when we already know the natural exists.
In other words, we have the natural world which consists of our universe and our selves. And in addition, we have the non-zero prior probability that our universe could come to exist and become what it actually has turned out to be. The physical world is contingent, since there is no logical contradiction entailed by the statement, "the universe might never have been, and it might have been different than it is." By contrast, the source of the "non-zero prior probability of this universe" must be non-contingent, since its negation entails that our contingent universe not exist, which contradicts the fact that our universe does indeed exist.
The difference between theism and non-theism is not the number of entities required, but rather and simply whether the non-contingent source and fount of all possibility is or is not less than personal.
Your argument rests upon error and is therefore fallacious.
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 #49
There have been three or four arguments put forward thus far. Do you believe that they are all fallacious?Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...When it turns out that x=0...
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
-
Fuzzy Dunlop
- Guru
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am
Post #50
It isn't that they're necessarily fallacious. It is that they are incapable of showing that God might not exist because God is an unfalsifiable concept which is potentially consistent with any state of affairs and able to be adapted to escape any argument.EduChris wrote:There have been three or four arguments put forward thus far. Do you believe that they are all fallacious?Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...When it turns out that x=0...
This is false and is another example of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Theism, as you illustrate here, rests upon a series of unproven arguments. A position built upon a series of unproven arguments is not more parsimonious than remaining at the default position of agnostic atheism, to the contrary it is multiplying entities beyond what is necessary.EduChris wrote:Theism posits no additional entities; instead, theism simply posits that the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is not-less-than-personal.Nilloc James wrote:...[theism] posits the necessity of an entire set of objects (the supernatural) and all their implications to explain the existence of the physical. That demands more entities and thus decreases it's probability as opposed to a naturalistic explanation when we already know the natural exists.
In other words, we have the natural world which consists of our universe and our selves. And in addition, we have the non-zero prior probability that our universe could come to exist and become what it actually has turned out to be. The physical world is contingent, since there is no logical contradiction entailed by the statement, "the universe might never have been, and it might have been different than it is." By contrast, the source of the "non-zero prior probability of this universe" must be non-contingent, since its negation entails that our contingent universe not exist, which contradicts the fact that our universe does indeed exist.
The difference between theism and non-theism is not the number of entities required, but rather and simply whether the non-contingent source and fount of all possibility is or is not less than personal.
Your argument rests upon error and is therefore fallacious.
