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.

[EduChris]

...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.

It is easy to provide a positive argument for the claim that "entity X" need not exist, so long as "entity X" is not deemed to be the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility. All that is required is the following statement: "The unobserved and unevidenced contingent 'entity X' does not exist." This statement entails no logical contradiction if and only if contingent 'entity X' has never been unambiguously evidenced.

By contrast, if the entity in question is logically necessary, then the lack of empirical or observational evidence has no relevance; instead, what is needed is to show that the negation involves no logical contradiction. But for the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility, its negation can only be free from contradiction if in fact nothing does exist and nothing ever could exist.

[Divine Insight]

...I haven't read this whole thread, so you'll have to excuse my reply...

Okay, we will excuse your off-topic post.

Well, I certainly hope so, because you posted this topic in "Christianity and Apologetics".

Therefore I have reason to believe that you are attempting to support Christianity specifically through some sort of apologetic argument.

This is why I addressed specifically how I feel your topic related to Christianity (or the Abrahamic picture in general)

Had you posted this in the Philosophy forum I may have treated it differently.

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."

To begin with I disagree with the dichotomy that you are attempting to construct here.

The people who argue that non-theism is a "default position" still have solid grounds for their arguments. Especially from a scientific point of view. (i.e. thinking in terms of how scientific inquiry is set up.)

There is simply no reason to hypothesize unnecessary imagined scenarios that aren't required to explain any known or observed phenomenon.

There is no known or observed phenomenon that would be explained by the hypothesis of theism. Especially considering that any hypothesized "God" or "Creator" would itself be a totally unexplained hypothesis.

You can hardly claim to be 'explaining' something by proposing a hypothesis that itself has no explanation.

So in that sense, from a purely scientific point of view, I agree with those who support the idea that the "default position" should indeed be to not suggest hypotheses that cannot be rationalized in terms of the reasons they are being hypothesized.

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'll confess that I don't fully understand the meaning of your definition.

I have looked up the term "non-contingent" and found that it is often used to mean any of the following:


1. logically necessary
2. not comparable
3. not unforeseeable
4. not undetermined
5. not dependent


I'm assuming that the intended usage here may be most closely related to #1 on the list?

Also the phrase, "not less than personal" is a bit confusing too.

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

That the source of all possibility has some sort of persona?

Is this a reference to an egotistical type of source that is supposed to possess a similar type of sentient experience of being unique as some sort of individual consciousness like we experience as humans?

If so, instead of saying "not less than personal" wouldn't it be more correct to say, "and possesses anthropomorphic qualities"?

In other words, would the following definition of theism suffice to properly convey the concept that you are attempting to convey with the definition you've offered originally?

theism is defined as the philosophical viewpoint that the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is not less than anthropomorphic.

If not, please explain where it fails.

I'm merely seeking to better understand your definition of theism.

If this is a correct understanding of your definition then I have more to say about this type of theistic hypothesis.

[EduChris]

...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.

My argument is based strictly on logic. Logic arguments cannot be "disproven," but they can be shown to be faulty if they violate the norms of logic. You have not demonstrated where my argument violates any norms of logic.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...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.

My argument is based strictly on logic. Logic arguments cannot be "disproven," but they can be shown to be faulty if they violate the norms of logic. You have not demonstrated where my argument violates any norms of logic.

Arguments can lead to incorrect conclusions when they rely upon false assumptions or premises. This means that each unknown you introduce into an argument, each unconfirmed step in reasoning you take, increases the possibility for error. In this case, the position that there is a personal cause behind the universe is less parsimonious than the position that the cause behind the universe may or may not be personal.

[EduChris]

...I have reason to believe that you are attempting to support Christianity specifically...

My post #3 specifically stated that "We are not concerned here about the particular beliefs of any religious tradition..."

Theism is related to Christianity (and every other theistic religion) but here on this thread we are exclusively concerned with the bare philosophical position.

...The people who argue that non-theism is a "default position" still have solid grounds for their arguments...

Good. So you believe there are actual and non-fallacious arguments which can support the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case." The task on this thread is to discover as many of these arguments as we can.

...There is no known or observed phenomenon that would be explained by the hypothesis of theism...

For that to be true, you would have to provide evidence that a non-theistic universe is possible. Please provide such evidence.

...any hypothesized "God" or "Creator" would itself be a totally unexplained hypothesis...You can hardly claim to be 'explaining' something by proposing a hypothesis that itself has no explanation...

Per the OP, "God" is: 1) logically necessary, 2) not-less-than-personal, and 3) the source and fount of all possibility. All of these terms should be accessible to anyone who understands the English language at or above the 9th grade level.

...the "default position" should indeed be to not suggest hypotheses that...

On this thread, the "default position" is not, "I don't know," but rather, "I will perform due diligence by formulating as many actual, non-fallacious arguments as I can, so that I might reach an informed conclusion.

...1. logically necessary...I'm assuming that the intended usage here may be most closely related to #1 on the list?...

Correct.

...the phrase, "not less than personal"...What exactly is that supposed to mean?...

Manifesting personal agency, without thereby compromising any other quality or attribute.

...instead of saying "not less than personal" wouldn't it be more correct to say, "and possesses anthropomorphic qualities"?...

That would be to put the cart before the horse. It is not that the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility possesses attributes "assumed to belong only to humans," as anthropomorphism implies, but rather that humans possess some characteristics of the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility.

...If this is a correct understanding of your definition then I have more to say about this type of theistic hypothesis.

What you really need to do, if you wish to stay on-topic, is to provide some non-fallacious argument to support the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."

[Divine Insight]

My argument is based strictly on logic. Logic arguments cannot be "disproven," but they can be shown to be faulty if they violate the norms of logic. You have not demonstrated where my argument violates any norms of logic.

I realize that the above comment was aimed at Fuzzy Dunlop, but I would like to comment on your position here just the same.

You say, "You have not demonstrated where my argument violates any norms of logic."

I will show where it does right now:

You are objecting to the scientific stance that non-theism should be the default position.

This ideal is based upon, and stems from, the "Scientific Method of Inquiry". In other words, a method of inquiry that creates hypotheses that are based upon observation, evidence, and experiential procedures that can be used to test the hypothesis that is being offered.

A theistic hypotheses fails this criteria in several ways.

1. It doesn't provide an explanation.

Proposing the existence of an unexplained creator does not explain anything.

On the contrary, now you're in a position where you need to explain how this unexplained creator came to be in the first place. So you're much further behind in terms of having explained anything with your proposed hypothesis.

How can you claim that it's logical to propose a completely arbitrary hypothesis that actually sets you back?

2. There is no observational evidence to even support such a hypothesis.

An intelligent consciousness designed this screwed up world?

Where is there any logic in that?

Why would an intelligent designer create life, much of which is clearly designed to eat other living things itself. Also why would an intelligent designer create all manner of disease to attack the life that it is creating?

The hypothesis doesn't even make any logical sense to begin with.

It not only fails to explain why things are the way they are, but it actually creates far more difficult questions of why any conscious being would create things to destroy each other?

So theism is actually an extremely illogical hypothesis to propose. It creates far more problems that it supposedly explains. In fact, it doesn't explain anything at all.

3. Finally, any hypothesis the suggests that a conscious sentient being is behind the creation of the universe would need to explain why this conscious being is playing hide and seek?

What would be the point to that?

If a conscious being has created us why doesn't that conscious being make itself known?

What would be the point in hiding itself from us?

So again, this hypothesis just creates far more problems than it even remotely begins to resolve. In fact, the truth is that it doesn't actually resolve anything at all.

So from this perspective it's a totally illogical hypothesis in terms of "The Scientific Method of Inquiry".

It's basically a hypothesis that suggests totally outrageous ideas that have never been observed, whilst not explaining anything.

So it's not only an illogical hypothesis, but it's also totally useless in terms of having any explanatory power at all.

It raises far more complex problems, and doesn't resolve or explain any of the original questions.

You'd be hard-pressed to come up with a more illogical hypothesis.

[EduChris]

...the position that there is a personal cause behind the universe is less parsimonious than the position that the cause behind the universe may or may not be personal...

Parsimony can be overriden by other factors such as logical (im)possibility, explanatory scope, and so on.

In this case, to allow for "strictly impersonal causation" is to suggest that our universe might be caused by necessity, which would entail that our universe itself is necessary. But we have already found that our universe is not logically necessary, since its negation involves no logical contradiction. The only thing that is logically necessary is the "possibility source" which undergirds our contingent existence.

[Divine Insight]

...If this is a correct understanding of your definition then I have more to say about this type of theistic hypothesis.

What you really need to do, if you wish to stay on-topic, is to provide some non-fallacious argument to support the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."

Well, before I can do that, I need to be sure precisely what you mean by "theism".

People use this single term to mean many different things. So I'm just trying to be clear on how you are personally using the term.

...instead of saying "not less than personal" wouldn't it be more correct to say, "and possesses anthropomorphic qualities"?...

That would be to put the cart before the horse. It is not that the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility possesses attributes "assumed to belong only to humans," as anthropomorphism implies, but rather that humans possess some characteristics of the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility.

Seems to me like your basically attempting to create wiggle room here for yourself.

My point is quite simple.

If by theism you are implying the existence of some "Intelligent Designer" of the universe that has sentience and consciousness similar to our own but perhaps not as restricted, then you've got a problem, IMHO.

Most of the problems you have I have already stated in my previous post, so I'll wait and see how you respond to that one.

[Haven]

I don't believe that a logically necessary ground of all reality exists, as I hold that the Universe (defined as all of natural reality) either sprung uncaused from nothing or has existed past-eternally in a timeless, quantum vacuum state.

[Divine Insight]

I just realized the whole problem with your approach EduChris

From the OP:

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.

Non-theism does not mean to that there is no intelligent designer behind the universe.

That is your problem.

It simple means not to assume that there is.

That's your problem in a nutshell right there.

Science does not proclaim that there is no God.

Science simple recognizes that a hypothesis that suggest that there is a creator does not solve any problems, nor does it explain anything.

So this is where the problem lies EduChris.

Non-theism does not means that there is no God.

It simple means that we're not going to assume that one exists.

And that's why it's a sound "default position" to take.

What other position would you take as a "default position"?

That an intelligent creator created the universe?

Why should that be the "default position"?

That assumes the existence of something that has never been observed, or verified in any way.