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.

[Mithrae]

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

To avoid equivocation, your definition for non-theism should be the viewpoint that the non-contingent source and fount of all possibility need not be personal.

You've stated that necessity is a known possible type of causation alongside personal agency.

So you must acknowledge that the non-contingent source and fount of all possibility might be causal necessity.

If the 'fount of all possibility' actualized those possibilities through personal agency, only some possibilities need be actualized. But if the 'fount of all possibility' actualized those possibilities through causal necessity, either no possibilities would be actualized or all possibilities would be actualized - a multitude of universes, including our own.


Edit: Of course, out of all possible universes there would undoubtedly be many which were created by a personal being. So even in that scenario theism might still be the case in our own universe, unless it could be shown that it is not possible at all.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...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."

I don't see what we're "getting on" with. If I may rephrase, you're setting aside the default position so that we can get on with the proactive task of seeing if there are any non-fallacious arguments for the default position. This is the essence of the shifting the burden of proof fallacy - in what way is productive exercise?

[Justin108]

...Your scenario is a fallacy in itself...

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."

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"?

Ok 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.

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

What you're not even going to respond? I'm wounded

[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.

Atheism or non theism is not a philosophical viewpoint anyway you slice it. It's just not theism, that's all, it doesn't speak of anything being or not being the case. If 90% of the people played golf there would have to be a name for those that don't play golf, and it wouldn't speak to a thing about golf, just that they don't play the game. Is that so effing difficult to understand?

[Artie]

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.

Atheism or non theism is not a philosophical viewpoint anyway you slice it. It's just not theism, that's all, it doesn't speak of anything being or not being the case. If 90% of the people played golf there would have to be a name for those that don't play golf, and it wouldn't speak to a thing about golf, just that they don't play the game. Is that so effing difficult to understand?

No, EduChris is right. Just as there is a santaism http://www.cromwell-intl.com/fun/santaism.html there must be a non-santaism. I think he's trying to philosophically prove the existence of Santa by stating there are no actual, non-fallacious arguments for non-santaism. I just don't understand why you would need any in the first place to understand that Santa doesn't exist.

[ndf8th]

Atheism or non theism is not a philosophical viewpoint anyway you slice it.

I've debated with atheists now for some 4 months daily
and 99% says it is philosophy or at least logic and logic
is part of phil?

so what is atheism to you then? As a former atheist and now freethinker
I would find an answer interesting

[Mithrae]

No, EduChris is right. Just as there is a santaism http://www.cromwell-intl.com/fun/santaism.html there must be a non-santaism. I think he's trying to philosophically prove the existence of Santa by stating there are no actual, non-fallacious arguments for non-santaism. I just don't understand why you would need any in the first place to understand that Santa doesn't exist.

It's remarkable how common this type of parody is, considering its manifest absurdity. Is the average atheist really so intellectually bankrupt that he can conceive no valid reasons for supposing that Santa does not exist?

The argument that Santa, leprechauns, Harry Potter and so on do not exist is that we know and can trace their development as fictional ideas.

By contrast in the case of theism we can (to some extent) trace its development - from animism to polytheism to monotheism, with various other developments along the way - as an explanatory theory, primarily regarding causation (why does it rain? why do things exist?).

And unless we attempt to turn scientific observations/descriptions into metaphysical principles/prescriptions - proposing that the 'laws of nature' we have recently formulated are actual principles which constrain things' behaviour - theism's role as explanatory theory has not yet been superceded or otherwise rendered obsolete (though like the theory of gravity it has certainly needed a lot of refinement over the millenia!).

Is there any valid alternative theory? Is there any non-fallacious argument for a state of affairs in which theism is not the case?

The only such argument I've seen in this thread was the one posted by LiamOS, which begins with a big "If consciousness in humans can be shown to be entirely the product of matter-energy interactions..." Even my own argument in post 81 has little merit to my mind, since I don't share EduChris' notion that 'necessity' is a known type of causation (it's just a way to avoid "Who caused God?" in the cosmological argument), and Haven's arguments make unjustified presumptions about the nature of this 'god' and 'evil' or 'lesser-making properties.'

So can we, at best, conclude that the state of affairs in which a god exists is at least as plausible as the state of affairs in which a god does not exist? If not, we surely ought to be seeing considerably better efforts on the part of alternative theories - some decent non-fallacious arguments that theism needn't be the case.

[Justin108]

The argument that Santa, leprechauns, Harry Potter and so on do not exist is that we know and can trace their development as fictional ideas.

By contrast in the case of theism we can (to some extent) trace its development - from animism to polytheism to monotheism, with various other developments along the way - as an explanatory theory, primarily regarding causation (why does it rain? why do things exist?).

Then I would substitute their examples of Harry Potter, Santa, etc. with fairies. Fairies are very much believed in today and is therefor not merely fictional ideas.

And unless we attempt to turn scientific observations/descriptions into metaphysical principles/prescriptions - proposing that the 'laws of nature' we have recently formulated are actual principles which constrain things' behaviour - theism's role as explanatory theory has not yet been superceded or otherwise rendered obsolete

Demanding an alternative theory before the prior can no longer be believed is pointless because now it comes down to a race for who's explanation came first.

What if I pulled out an idea like "the universe came from four magic crystals" (assuming for argument sake that I actually did believe this and that it wasn't just meant as a parody), would my theory be as valid as the proposal for god? Mine is no more or less supported. It is merely a claim of "well where else did it come from, then?"

The fact that god has been replaced by scientific explanations in anything from explaining sunrises to thunder storms to seasons make me wonder why people still consider god as an explanation? If god has failed as an explanation for every other scientific phenomena then why do we persist in using this failing explanation?
"Ok so god didn't cause THIS but surely he caused THAT". How many times do people have to make this flawed assumption before it is no longer considered?

[Mithrae]

The argument that Santa, leprechauns, Harry Potter and so on do not exist is that we know and can trace their development as fictional ideas.

By contrast in the case of theism we can (to some extent) trace its development - from animism to polytheism to monotheism, with various other developments along the way - as an explanatory theory, primarily regarding causation (why does it rain? why do things exist?).

Then I would substitute their examples of Harry Potter, Santa, etc. with fairies. Fairies are very much believed in today and is therefor not merely fictional ideas.

I wasn't aware that they're very much believed in today. Why are they believed in? Alien visitations might be a better example. But the approach remains the same whether we're talking about leprechauns, theism, gravity, fairies or aliens: What are the reasons that they're believed in? Are there better explanations for those reasons, such as delusion, paradigmatic brainwashing, wishful thinking? And are there reasonable alternative theories?

And unless we attempt to turn scientific observations/descriptions into metaphysical principles/prescriptions - proposing that the 'laws of nature' we have recently formulated are actual principles which constrain things' behaviour - theism's role as explanatory theory has not yet been superceded or otherwise rendered obsolete

Demanding an alternative theory before the prior can no longer be believed is pointless because now it comes down to a race for who's explanation came first.

What if I pulled out an idea like "the universe came from four magic crystals" (assuming for argument sake that I actually did believe this and that it wasn't just meant as a parody), would my theory be as valid as the proposal for god? Mine is no more or less supported. It is merely a claim of "well where else did it come from, then?"

What is your hypothetical reason for supposing that the universe came from four magic crystals?

In the case of theism - from its roots in animism and polytheism - the reason for supposing that clouds, animals, rivers and so on were governed by choice is because that is the causal process with which we are most intimately familiar. In fact to my knowledge I don't think that a conclusive case can be made for any other causal process at all! The reason why local spirits merged into pantheons of gods, and pantheons of gods into a single Creator boils down largely to Ockham's razor, I suspect.

Like I said, theistic theories have undergone a lot of refinement over the millenia, in part for social/cultural reasons but also in part precisely because of their role as explanatory theories requires adaption to new information and reasoning. All theories are not equal, and that's part of the reason why some persevere while others diminish. But surely it is reasonable to ask for some valid alternative to existing theories, if there are any?

The fact that god has been replaced by scientific explanations in anything from explaining sunrises to thunder storms to seasons make me wonder why people still consider god as an explanation? If god has failed as an explanation for every other scientific phenomena then why do we persist in using this failing explanation?
"Ok so god didn't cause THIS but surely he caused THAT". How many times do people have to make this flawed assumption before it is no longer considered?

Over the millenia, and over the past few centuries especially, we've greatly broadened both the scope and depth of our descriptions of observable phenomena. We have disconfirmed any suggestion that the sun is pulled across the sky in Apollo's chariot, or is pushed by a celestial dung beetle. But to my knowledge we have not disconfirmed the suggestion that the motions of sun, moon and stars operate under divine governance.

On the contrary we have increasingly confirmed the Hebrew scriptures' declaration of an orderly cosmos, whilst in the last century (so I gather) somewhat disconfirming the 18th and 19th centuries' theories of a strictly deterministic universe. My knowledge here is extremely limited, but to my mind two of the biggest questions we currently face are:
> To what extent is apparent quantum indeterminacy genuinely random, or to what extent might it reflect some underlying principle/s which we can't observe?
> Are the 'laws of nature' which we've formulated over recent centuries merely descriptions of behaviour/interaction inherent to each particle in the universe and their space-time substrate, or might they reflect some overlying constraining principle/s?

I'm not sure either of those questions can be answered in a strictly scientific manner, and indeed given my limited knowledge I'm not even sure that they're the right kind of questions to be asking But both of them remain wide open to theistic interpretations, as far as I'm aware.

[Justin108]

In the case of theism - from its roots in animism and polytheism - the reason for supposing that clouds, animals, rivers and so on were governed by choice is because that is the causal process with which we are most intimately familiar. In fact to my knowledge I don't think that a conclusive case can be made for any other causal process at all! The reason why local spirits merged into pantheons of gods, and pantheons of gods into a single Creator boils down largely to Ockham's razor, I suspect.

.

The problem is that theism does not stop at explanations for the existence of the universe. Theism goes to add attributes and personality traits to god where nothing suggests these traits. They also add claims such as that god made a list of commands by which we must live by aswell as claiming an afterlife.

Over the millenia, and over the past few centuries especially, we've greatly broadened both the scope and depth of our descriptions of observable phenomena. We have disconfirmed any suggestion that the sun is pulled across the sky in Apollo's chariot, or is pushed by a celestial dung beetle. But to my knowledge we have not disconfirmed the suggestion that the motions of sun, moon and stars operate under divine governance.

My point is the belief in god is an assumption that has a bad reputation of being false in the case of sunsets and seasons. Why does our gap of knowledge have to conclude the existence of god? What is so wrong with saying "we don't know yet"? Even if a 9 year old boy does not know where babies come from does not mean they come from storks. To me the god argument is as good as the stork theory; both are based on nothing other than hastily filling in a gap in our knowledge.