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]

...the Universe (defined as all of natural reality) either sprung uncaused from nothing...

This amounts to denying the principle of cause-and-effect, on which all of science relies. Denying cause-and-effect results in a world impervious to the scientific method. Since the scientific method does seem to work very well within its domain, we have no practical or logical basis to deny the principle of cause-and-effect.

...or has existed past-eternally in a timeless, quantum vacuum state.

What caused the "timeless, quantum vacuum state" to suddenly actualize the universe as we find it?

[EduChris]

Most of the people on this planet do not think that God is playing "hide and seek at all."

That is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

No it is not; it was simply an objection to the unevidenced assertion that God is playing hide and seek. In other words, I was demonstrating the "he said, she said" nature of the claim that "God is playing hide and seek." And I already pointed out in an earlier post that "he said, she said" is not a valid argument.

Also, please note what I said in the very same post that you quoted:

...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?

[EduChris]

...How does denying God's existence entail a contradiction? Such a denial must entail a contradiction according to your own definition of necessity.

Remember that God is the "source and fount of all possibility." If any possibilities can be actualized, then this "source and fount of all possibility" cannot not exist. And we know that at least some possibilities are actualized, since the possibility of our universe has been actualized.

In order to provide a contradiction-free negation of "the source and fount of all possibility," we would have to show that nothing does exist and that nothing ever will exist--clearly a self-refuting endeavor.

[Haven]

...the Universe (defined as all of natural reality) either sprung uncaused from nothing...

This amounts to denying the principle of cause-and-effect, on which all of science relies. Denying cause-and-effect results in a world impervious to the scientific method. Since the scientific method does seem to work very well within its domain, we have no practical or logical basis to deny the principle of cause-and-effect.

No, it doesn't. The principle of cause-and-effect is not nothing, but something, and therefore it too did not exist in the primordial nothingness. Neither did logical laws, which are predicated on and descriptive of reality itself. In a state of absolute nothingness, anything -- including the generation of a universe -- is possible. After the universe spontaneously came into existence, of course, the principle of cause-and-effect would take over.

What caused the "timeless, quantum vacuum state" to suddenly actualize the universe as we find it?

A quantum fluctuation. Science has shown that these fluctuations can (and do) occur without causation.

[d.thomas]

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.

I don't believe a word of what you say is good enough for the atheists I know. Atheists don't do theism, what else do you need to know?

[EduChris]

If consciousness in humans can be shown to be entirely the product of matter-energy interactions...

Such has not and cannot be shown. At best, we have a "he said, she said" scenario where some folks assert "yes" and some folks assert "no."

...no other form of consciousness is known...

There is no need to suppose that our consciousness is of a different form than God's. It may be that our consciousness is limited in degree and therefore cannot be the source and fount of all possibility, but a difference in degree does not entail a difference in form.

...anything preceding matter cannot be conscious...

What is "matter"? What "precedes" matter? What is the difference between the two, such as would permit consciousness in the one, but not the other?

...which gives us the conclusion that God, in any meaningful sense, is not conscious, and therefore Theism is not the case.

Your entire argument consists of one speculation after another. Speculation does not count as a non-fallacious argument.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...If we don't know what caused our universe, how can we know whether or not our universe is logically necessary?...

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.

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.

But if we don't know what caused our universe, how can we know whether or not our universe is logically necessary? How do we know this "test" applies to the creation of the universe? How can we check to see if the argument is true?

Also, what is the logical contradiction in the statement "our universe might not have been created by God"?

[Divine Insight]

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

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."

But you did display a misunderstanding of this concept in the OP

In the OP you said:

After all, if non-theism can be asserted (or adopted, or held) without evidence, then non-theism can be dismissed without evidence.

Non-theism is not being asserted, adopted, or held "without evidence".

It's NOT a conclusion. Sorry for the bold uppercase, but it's important that you understand this.

A default position of non-theism is not a statement of any conclusions, assumptions, or assertions as you have suggested. It simply a position that states that no assumptions, assertions, or conclusions are going to be automatically accepted on that topic.

If you want to propose a theistic hypothesis you're going to need to show why that makes sense before it will be adopted. That's all this means.

So it's wrong of you to say that non-theism can be dismissed without evidence, because it's not an assertion to begin with.

It's not a claim that there is no God.

That is a misunderstanding on your part.

...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...

The scientific method cannot and does not pertain to matters of metaphysics. Science carefully and scrupulously concerns itself only with the physical universe.

I am wholeheartedly in agreement with you on this.

But this also misses the point.

You seem to be concerned with those people who take non-theism as a default position in the scientific world. But they have very good reason for doing this, precisely because science is all about what is measurable, observable, and experimentally testable (i.e. physical reality)

I don't think anyone who studies pure philosophy is necessarily going to begin with a default position of non-theism. Although, there's certainly no reason they couldn't chose to do so.

...A theistic hypotheses...doesn't provide an explanation...

Theism is the only explanation for the fact that our contingent universe exists.

How is it any explanation at all?

Haven has already shown you the fallacy of that argument.

You keep demanding that the existence of a God is a "logical necessity".

Who says so?

Where do you come up with that? You've just created an arbitrary definition that proclaims that this has to be the case. But that's just an arbitrary definition.

That's meaningless.

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

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.

It doesn't explain anything of the sort. It's nothing but a totally ungrounded assertion.

Where have you shown the "logical necessity" of a "not-less-than-personal source"

I must have missed that part. You keep making this assertion but you haven't shown why it is "Logical Necessary".

...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...

Logical necessity is its own cause. If something is logically necessary, it cannot not be.

That's right, but you haven't show the logical necessity of a "not-less-than-personal source".

All you've done is assert it without any support.

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

So?

We can't say then what the true nature of reality is.

That's exactly where we stand.

No problem there.

...An intelligent consciousness designed this screwed up world?...

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.

Oh please. Seriously. Give me a break.

If you're going to go into the Biblical claim that Evil was caused because humans fell from grace from some God, I can already shoot that down easily.

We have already observed scientifically that death, disease, and all manner of imperfections, and things that we would consider to be "Evil" have existed long before humans ever came on the scene.

You can't pin the "Problem of Evil" onto humans.

Moreover, there is no "Problem of Evil" in a godless or non-theistic world.

On the contrary if there exists any problem at all in a non-theistic universe it would be the "Problem of Goodness". Why are things even remotely as good as they are?

So if there's a problem at all it's a "Problem of Goodness" not a "Problem of Evil".

In fact, the "Problem of Evil" is necessarily a problem associated with a supposed intelligent designer who would have had to have necessarily designed all of the evil things we see, including all manner of disease, etc.

So in any theism that proclaims that an Intelligent Designer created this world has the additional "Problem of Evil" that doesn't even exist in a non-theistic setting.

There is not "Problem of Evil" in a non-theistic world.

...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?...

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.

Sure, I would be more than happy to.

How many people would need to see and touch God?

Anyone who would like to know that their creator exists should be provided sufficient evidence by any creator who is not playing hide-and-seek.

So, that's pretty straight-forward any obvious I would think.

If such a creator exists, he/she/or it, is certainly playing hide-and-seek with me to the hilt.

There's no question about that at all.

And even in spite of this I'm still a spiritual person. But only because Eastern Mysticism provides a very rational and realistic answer to this riddle.

It's certainly not answered by religions that claim that an egotistical God speaks to people from burning bushes or clouds.

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?

If there really existed such an entity, that entity should know how to properly communicate with his creation. Anything short of that would imply an inept creator that created something he can not longer control or properly communicate with.

In other words, any God who can't figure that would would necessarily be inept.

How would they know they were not merely addressing some advanced sort of space-alien?

Again, like I say, the creator himself should be able to provide them with whatever it takes to convince them.

If he can't do that, then this would be a limitation on his part.

And therefore the saying, "With God all things are possible" would become an empty cliche.

[EduChris]

...The principle of cause-and-effect is not nothing, but something, and therefore it too did not exist in the primordial nothingness...

What exactly is "primordial nothingness"? Does this "primordial nothingness" allow for quantum fluctuations? If it does, then it seems it is not "nothing" (at least not in the sense that we normally use the word).

...Neither did logical laws, which are predicated on and descriptive of reality itself...

So you are saying that "laws" are descriptive, rather than "prescriptive." In what sense, then, can a physical law be "violated"? It seems that if laws are descriptive, then anything that occurs would accord with the physical "law," even if it were exceedingly rare.

...In a state of absolute nothingness, anything -- including the generation of a universe -- is possible...

It sounds as though your "state of absolute nothingness" is very similar my "source and fount of all possibility." What is the negation of your "state of absolute nothingness"? Can it be negated without contradiction? Or does it exist necessarily? If "anything...is possible" in your "state of absolute nothingness," is consciousness possible? If not, then apparently you mean something other than what the word "anything" usually means.

...After the universe spontaneously came into existence, of course, the principle of cause-and-effect would take over...

Would "cause-and-effect" take over in a prescriptive sense, or just a descriptive sense?

Also, how would you differentiate between a "spontaneous" actualization, and a "freely chosen" actualization?

...A quantum fluctuation. Science has shown that these fluctuations can (and do) occur without causation.

Where has science observed a "state of absolute nothingness" in which anything is possible? How do you differentiate between something which happens "without causation," and something which happens according to a cause which is real, but as yet unknown or undetected?

[Haven]

By "absolute nothingness," I mean a state in which there is no existence. No physical universe, no quantum particles or fluctuations, no matter, no energy, no gods, no minds, no logic, no physical laws, no anything.