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
-
no evidence no belief
- Banned
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm
Post #111
Before we go further, I'd request a clarification:
Did this "God" entity, as defined in this post, magically cause a donkey to talk at any stage in the past? Did he magically get a 14 year old virgin pregnant without, you know, doing her? Did he cause a zombie invasion in Jerusalem? Did he sacrifice himself to himself to create a loophole whereby if we believed that he was awesome for sacrificing himself to himself, he wouldn't torture us for eternity as punishment for being the way he created us?
Did this "God" entity, as defined in this post, magically cause a donkey to talk at any stage in the past? Did he magically get a 14 year old virgin pregnant without, you know, doing her? Did he cause a zombie invasion in Jerusalem? Did he sacrifice himself to himself to create a loophole whereby if we believed that he was awesome for sacrificing himself to himself, he wouldn't torture us for eternity as punishment for being the way he created us?
-
no evidence no belief
- Banned
- Posts: 1507
- Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #112Let's assume for sake of argument that if non-Santaism were the objective reality, we would be able to offer some positive and non-fallacious argument to support the philosophical viewpoint known as non-santaism.EduChris wrote: 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.
In this discussion, we will use the following definitions:
Santaism: the philosophical viewpoint that the non-contingent source and fount of all Christmas presents has a magical toy factory in the north pole..
Non-santaism: the philosophical viewpoint that santaism need not be the case.
Santa: the non-contingent, not-less-than-personal source and fount of all christmas presents created in a magical toy factory in the north pole.
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-santaism. In this thread we are not allowed to rely on some supposed "default position of non-santaism"; rather, we must provide an actual, non-fallacious argument for non-santaism.
After all, if non-santaism can be asserted (or adopted, or held) without evidence, then non-santaism can be dismissed without evidence.
You present an argument against disbelief in God. I present here an argument against disbelief in Santa.
Please provide a cogent refutation to my Santa argument. You will find that if you do so, you will have also refuted your theism argument, being that your theism argument and my Santa argument are identical.
What's my point? It doesn't matter that you found a way of incorporating your freshman year, philosophy 101 lingo into the justification of your dogmatic belief in fairy tales. Your argument is and has always been this: "GODDIDIT".
Substitute "universe" with "lightning" and substitute "God" with "Juju on the mountain", and your argument is on equal footing with that of some half naked medicine man with a bone through his nose and a goat-testicle amulet around his neck, dancing around hoping that it will start raining and his simpleton tribesmen will not linch him.
Post #113
Per post #3:no evidence no belief wrote:...Did this "God" entity, as defined in this post, magically cause a donkey to talk...
I would add that we are not concerned here on this thread about the various possible interpretations of any particular religious text.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.
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 #114This has already been addressed by Mithrae on post #87:no evidence no belief wrote:...Let's assume for sake of argument that if non-Santaism were the objective reality, we would be able to offer some positive and non-fallacious argument to support the philosophical viewpoint known as non-santaism...
...Is the average atheist really so intellectually bankrupt that he can conceive no valid reasons for supposing that Santa does not exist?...
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 #115
What good, non-fallacious argument(s) can you provide that there can be such a thing as a universe without God (as defined in the OP)?Alchemy wrote:...What of Justin108's argumentJustin108 wrote:...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.
What good, non-fallacious argument(s) can you provide that the non-contingent source and fount of all possibility is less than personal? Note that your argument here would need to provide actual evidence or argumentation that this universe is logically necessary.
It appears as though several here have adopted the view that theism need not be the case simply by the virtue that there is some faint, unargued, unevidenced possibility that theism need not be the case. But what this thread is all about is whether there are any actual, good, non-fallacious arguments that theism need not be the case.
After all, there is a faint, unargued, unevidenced possibility that the theory of evolution may be false, and yet we do not typically say this faint, unargued, unevidenced possibility gives us adequate grounds to dismiss the theory of evolution.
Last edited by EduChris on Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 #116
Consider the statement, "Our universe need not have existed."Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...we don't know whether or not our universe is logically necessary...
This statement entails no logical contradiction. Moreover, it contradicts no known facts. Therefore, there is greater justification for the view that our universe is contingent than there is for the view that our universe is logically necessary.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Theism is an actual position, whereas "agnostic atheism" is a lack of a position.Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...Theism thus relies upon an unproven assumption while agnostic atheism does not...
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 #117
Well, that would just depend on the circumstances. If you have a cold water pipe in a humid room water drops forming is a logical necessity. If you had the appropriate circumstances existing "before" this universe came into being it would be a logical necessity for it to exist. You are the one who has to demonstrate that there could be no circumstances "before" the universe started to exist that would make it a logical necessity for it to exist and put in your personal agent there.EduChris wrote:your argument here would need to provide actual evidence or argumentation that this universe is logically necessary.
Post #118
Logical necessity does not depend on circumstances. If something depends on the circumstances, then in some circumstances the logical negation of that "something" will not entail a contradiction--and that in turn means that the "something" in question is contingent rather than logically necessary.
In other words, your understanding of "necessity" and "contingency" is muddled. If something is contingent, it depends on the circumstances. If something is logically necessary, then any negation under any circumstances results in a logical contradiction.
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 #119
Yes it does. It entails both a logical contradiction and contradicts known facts.EduChris wrote:Consider the statement, "Our universe need not have existed."Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...we don't know whether or not our universe is logically necessary...
This statement entails no logical contradiction. Moreover, it contradicts no known facts.
The logical contradiction is that we don't know which circumstances existed "before" the existence of the universe and if those circumstances were exactly right our universe might have no choice but to come into existence. So the universe could very well have "needed to come into existence." The statement should read: "Our universe need not have existed if the circumstances hadn't been exactly right so that it had no choice but to come into existence".
And the statement "Our universe need not have existed" also contradicts known facts because we know for a fact that certain circumstances can produce certain effects. It doesn't matter that we don't know the exact circumstances "before" the universe came into existence, but whatever they were, the universe might perfectly well be a necessary consequence.
Post #120
So the water drops forming on a pipe in a humid room are not logically necessary? It is not logical that water drops form on a cold pipe in a humid room and there are no other circumstances preventing them? Can you use this example to explain your point?EduChris wrote:Logical necessity does not depend on circumstances. If something depends on the circumstances, then in some circumstances the logical negation of that "something" will not entail a contradiction--and that in turn means that the "something" in question is contingent rather than logically necessary.
In other words, your understanding of "necessity" and "contingency" is muddled. If something is contingent, it depends on the circumstances. If something is logically necessary, then any negation under any circumstances results in a logical contradiction.
