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
-
Haven
Post #61
Here's another argument showing theism is highly unlikely (and therefore needs not be the case), developed by a YouTube atheist user named Dhorpatan. It reads:
P1: Everything that is sentient has a cause
P2: God is said to be sentient
C1: Therefore, God has a cause
P4: Theism claims that God is uncaused and possesses sentience
C2: P4 contradicts P1 and C1
C3: Therefore, theism is false
P1: Everything that is sentient has a cause
P2: God is said to be sentient
C1: Therefore, God has a cause
P4: Theism claims that God is uncaused and possesses sentience
C2: P4 contradicts P1 and C1
C3: Therefore, theism is false
-
Fuzzy Dunlop
- Guru
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am
Post #62
If we don't know what caused our universe, how can we know whether or not our universe is logically necessary? This is the sort of unknown entity that makes your position less parsimonious than saying "I don't know." Every time you introduce these nebulous concepts like "necessity" and "personal causation" you multiply entities and introduce more uncertainty.EduChris wrote:Parsimony can be overriden by other factors such as logical (im)possibility, explanatory scope, and so on.Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...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...
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.
Post #63
I am not "objecting" to anything; rather, I am setting aside any (real or imagined) "default position" so that we can get on with the proactive task of discovering whether there are any non-fallacious arguments to support the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."Divine Insight wrote:...You are objecting to the scientific stance that non-theism should be the default position...
The scientific method cannot and does not pertain to matters of metaphysics. Science carefully and scrupulously concerns itself only with the physical universe.Divine Insight wrote:...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...
Theism is the only explanation for the fact that our contingent universe exists.Divine Insight wrote:...A theistic hypotheses...doesn't provide an explanation...
Already addressed in my previous post. The logically necessary, not-less-than-personal source and fount of all possibility does in fact explain the existence of our contingent universe.Divine Insight wrote:...Proposing the existence of an unexplained creator does not explain anything...
Logical necessity is its own cause. If something is logically necessary, it cannot not be.Divine Insight wrote:...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...
There is no observation to support any other hypothesis. We cannot get outside of our universe; we cannot scan eternity; we cannot map infinity.Divine Insight wrote:...There is no observational evidence to even support such a hypothesis...
This amounts to the Problem of Evil which Haven has already put forward. I haven't addressed that particular argument yet, but I will as time allows.Divine Insight wrote:...An intelligent consciousness designed this screwed up world?...
Most of the people on this planet do not think that God is playing "hide and seek at all." But if you want to make a specific argument as to why God should reveal himself in a particular way, you would need to provide more specifics. How many people would need to see and touch God? How would these people know that this manifestation were really and in truth the logically necessary, not-less-than-personal source and fount of all possibility? How would they know they were not merely addressing some advanced sort of space-alien?Divine Insight wrote:...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?...
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
-
Haven
Post #64
Emphasis mine.[color=darkred]EduChris[/color] wrote:Theism is the only explanation for the fact that our contingent universe exists.
Please provide evidence to support this assertion.
That is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.[color=red]EduChris[/color] wrote:Most of the people on this planet do not think that God is playing "hide and seek at all."
Last edited by Haven on Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post #65
The test for whether something is logically necessary is simple: if its negation entails a logical contradiction, then it is logically necessary. If its negation does not entail a logical contradiction, then it is contingent.Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...If we don't know what caused our universe, how can we know whether or not our universe is logically necessary?...
There is no logical contradiction in the statement, "Our universe might not have been." There is no logical contradiction in the statement, "Our universe might have been different than it is."
Therefore, our universe is not logically necessary.
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 #66
There are only two forms of causation known to us: necessity and personal agency. If our universe is caused by necessity, then the universe is logically necessary. But we already know that our universe cannot be logically necessary, since its negation involves no logical contradiction. Therefore, personal agency is the only remaining possible cause for our contingent universe.Haven wrote:Emphasis mine.[color=darkred]EduChris[/color] wrote:Theism is the only explanation for the fact that our contingent universe exists.
Please provide evidence to support this assertion.
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 #67
God is the logically necessary, not-less-than-personal source and fount of all possibility. Logical necessity is its own cause; that which is logically necessary cannot not be. Thus the "cause" for God is God's own logical necessity.Haven wrote:Here's another argument showing theism is highly unlikely (and therefore needs not be the case), developed by a YouTube atheist user named Dhorpatan. It reads:
P1: Everything that is sentient has a cause
P2: God is said to be sentient
C1: Therefore, God has a cause
P4: Theism claims that God is uncaused and possesses sentience
C2: P4 contradicts P1 and C1
C3: Therefore, theism is false
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
-
Haven
Post #70
[color=brown]EduChris[/color] wrote:God is the logically necessary, not-less-than-personal source and fount of all possibility. Logical necessity is its own cause; that which is logically necessary cannot not be. Thus the "cause" for God is God's own logical necessity.[color=green]Haven[/color] wrote:Here's another argument showing theism is highly unlikely (and therefore needs not be the case), developed by a YouTube atheist user named Dhorpatan. It reads:
P1: Everything that is sentient has a cause
P2: God is said to be sentient
C1: Therefore, God has a cause
P4: Theism claims that God is uncaused and possesses sentience
C2: P4 contradicts P1 and C1
C3: Therefore, theism is false
How does denying God's existence entail a contradiction? Such a denial must entail a contradiction according to your own definition of necessity.
