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
Post #191
I haven't dismissed personal agency as magic. I don't believe you argue its magic either.
I think you've lost the direction of our discussion. Let me rehash:
Chris: non-theism can't make any arguments to explain personal agency. Theism can and does.
Scourge: non-theists can explain personal agency. You've argued for some of those explanations before. Such explanations do not require a gods existence or non-existence. Thus, neither theism or non-theism has got anything to do with the explanation unless you want to invoke magic or god-did-it.
Chris: science is also guilty of invoking something similar to god-did-it or magic because it has only explained things so far. It hasn't explained everything.
Scourge: i agree that science hasn't explained everything. But good scientists are honest about their ignorance and the extent of what science has explained. Whereas theists seem prone to insert magic, god-did-it, or just-so-stories to explain away their ignorance. These are two very different ways for dealing with ignorance.
Chris: but these theists are working off their best hypotheses just like scientists.
Scourge : at what point does magic, god-did-it, and a just-so-story become one's best working hypothesis?
Chris: (insert text here)
You said that non theists can't make any arguments to support personal agency. I disagreed and explained how quantum consciousness (an idea you have argued in support of in the past) offers such an explanation (even though i personally believe quantum consciousness is bunk). And now you say quantum consciousness does not explain personal agency because i can't prove that quantum activity doesn't rely on a god? That's a perfect example of moving the goal posts.
Suppose i argue that non theists can't explain gold. Being the educated person you are you respond by saying that they can because gold is an element which is comprised of atoms which behavior and characteristics are perfectly explained. " HAHA" , i say. "You can't explain atoms so you can't explain gold" . You respond again explaining how atoms completely explain gold. And while its true you don't know how many layers to the onion there are (elements, atoms, sub atomic particles, bosons, etc ) it doesn't matter because we have a complete understanding of the layer we are talking about. "Aha" i say. "I've got you now. You admit you can't explain everything about bosons so you can't say you've explained gold because gold is ultimately made of bosons. Therefore, you can't explain gold!"
I'm responding directly to your responses on this thread which stem from responses to the OP.EduChris wrote:
Be that as it may, I invite you to turn your attention toward complying with the parameters of the OP. I don't see any need to respond to any more of your posts here which fail to comply with the parameters of the OP.
Religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do not know.
Post #192
I'll have to pull you up on that one. The type of epistemological arguments you are attempting here, involving 'theism' and 'personal agency' are most definitely NOT used by scientists. I have worked professionally in Physics research for 35 years, and I have NEVER seen epistemological reasoning of the type you are attempting here in a peer reviewed scientific paper. Never. I challenge you to find a single example of epistemological reasoning of the type you are attempting here in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. In science, the relative merits of various hypotheses are ultimately decided on the basis of experimental evidence, which is precisely the opposite of your epistemology. Please do not try to teach me about the nature of scientific method. As far as science is concerned, the arguments you are attempting to present here are pure junk.EduChris wrote:Epistemology is widely understood and used by scientists and by anyone of any scholarly rank who needs to weigh the respective merits of various claims.ytrewq wrote:...I maintain that epistemology is mostly nonsense, and that it would be in common use among professional scientists if it had anything of value to offer...
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2576 times
Post #193
From the OP:
"Non-theism" is, I contend, predicated on the statement "There God sits". Given that there are no gods on display, the rational conclusion to be had is, well, don't it beat all, there are no gods on display. (admitting to we're doing some concluding here)
Only some theists can't sit comfortable with that. They've gotta tell you about how there's this great cosmic being who just thunk all of this into existence. All the while he will never show that sentience, consciousness, thought, or any of any of that can derive from the "ether". Cognition is a product of matter; that's so much a fact that if you don't accept it, gravity won't cause you no harm either.
"Non-fallacious" argument for non-theism?
How 'bout a confirmable argument for theism? Nope. Too much to ask, cause the god concept is borne of the ignorance of humans. It is borne of the inability to fully and properly explain a given condition.
"Non-fallacious" argument for non-theism?
Sure, we'll never show there ain't a god here directly. When in heck does that mean the theist has shown there is? Why should that lead us to conclude the theist has him one of them fancy "non-fallacious arguments that there God sits"?
What we have in this OP, is an OP, and God love the OP, but we have an OP that can see no other explanation than there God sits. That don't hafta be a bad thing, that don't hafta be anything other'n there he sits, and he sees God there at it. Though all it is, I contend, is one great big argument from incredulity, or ignorance (clinical term). I propose that if one could show there was a god, they wouldn't hafta fret the deal asking you why there ain't one. They'd just go on and say such as, "see, ya big goofy, there his sits right there" and barring your being blind since at least ya woke up, ya'd be able to dadgum see that god right there too. But don't it beat all, ya never do, and you don't even need glasses.
It doesn't can't happen in the god concept. The god concept is specifically borne of ignorance. It is specifically borne of the notion "if you can't show it ain't, then I'm gon' think it is". The god concept is a peculiar set of circumstances. It is brought on by one's confoundment at the "enormity of it all". It is brought on by the confoundity of "what the heck". It is, at its root, an attempt by the psyche to make some sense of it all. It is a comfort. It is a ruse. And it is pernicious in how it seeks to infect others about it.
Alas, some prefer to remain ignorant of any challenges or refutations of their pet notions. 'Cause God.
The theist is utterly incapable of showing his god exists. He'll swear it up down. He'll stomp his fit and he'll carry on. But he'll never show it.Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
"Non-theism" is, I contend, predicated on the statement "There God sits". Given that there are no gods on display, the rational conclusion to be had is, well, don't it beat all, there are no gods on display. (admitting to we're doing some concluding here)
Only some theists can't sit comfortable with that. They've gotta tell you about how there's this great cosmic being who just thunk all of this into existence. All the while he will never show that sentience, consciousness, thought, or any of any of that can derive from the "ether". Cognition is a product of matter; that's so much a fact that if you don't accept it, gravity won't cause you no harm either.
"Non-fallacious" argument for non-theism?
How 'bout a confirmable argument for theism? Nope. Too much to ask, cause the god concept is borne of the ignorance of humans. It is borne of the inability to fully and properly explain a given condition.
"Non-fallacious" argument for non-theism?
Sure, we'll never show there ain't a god here directly. When in heck does that mean the theist has shown there is? Why should that lead us to conclude the theist has him one of them fancy "non-fallacious arguments that there God sits"?
What we have in this OP, is an OP, and God love the OP, but we have an OP that can see no other explanation than there God sits. That don't hafta be a bad thing, that don't hafta be anything other'n there he sits, and he sees God there at it. Though all it is, I contend, is one great big argument from incredulity, or ignorance (clinical term). I propose that if one could show there was a god, they wouldn't hafta fret the deal asking you why there ain't one. They'd just go on and say such as, "see, ya big goofy, there his sits right there" and barring your being blind since at least ya woke up, ya'd be able to dadgum see that god right there too. But don't it beat all, ya never do, and you don't even need glasses.
It doesn't can't happen in the god concept. The god concept is specifically borne of ignorance. It is specifically borne of the notion "if you can't show it ain't, then I'm gon' think it is". The god concept is a peculiar set of circumstances. It is brought on by one's confoundment at the "enormity of it all". It is brought on by the confoundity of "what the heck". It is, at its root, an attempt by the psyche to make some sense of it all. It is a comfort. It is a ruse. And it is pernicious in how it seeks to infect others about it.
Alas, some prefer to remain ignorant of any challenges or refutations of their pet notions. 'Cause God.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Post #194
Looks like you may need to edit your original posting, and re-define what you mean by non-theism. Here is your original posting:EduChris wrote:I am attempting no such thing. I'm just trying to see if anyone has any positive argument for the philosophical viewpoint that theism is less justified than non-theism on the basis of the usual criteria: 1) logically coherent; 2) not contravened by evidence; and 3) in accord with standard and normal rules of epistemology.ytrewq wrote:...why are you setting out to show something that is already acknowledged to be true, namely, that we cannot be certain that God exists.
You ask if there is a case for non-theism. My response was: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.
EduChris, I can only work with what you wrote in your original posting.You are trying to show that 'theism need not be the case', meaning God need not exist, in other words, that we cannot be certain that God exists. Why do we need epistemology to show us that, when atheist and theist alike already agree that this is true? Why bother trying to show something that is universally acknowledged to be true in the first place?
The only way this could NOT be true, was if there was evidence available that PROVED Gods existence. I have never seen such evidence, and nor has anyone else, AFAIK, and I have never heard a theist or anyone else claim they can prove the existence of God, and you even say it yourself in your quote above.
Again, why are you setting out to show something that is already acknowledged to be true, namely, that we cannot be certain that God exists?
Why are you setting out to to show something that is already acknowledged to be true, namely, that 'theism need not be the case', which is equivalent to saying 'we cannot be certain that God exists', isn't it?. We all know that already, as I have explained.
Post #195
According to Wikipedia, the following fields make use of epistemology: Education, artificial intelligence, mathematics, science, neurology, logic, etc.ytrewq wrote:...The type of epistemological arguments you are attempting here...are most definitely NOT used by scientists...pure junk...
I don't doubt that you make no conscious use of it, but still everyone uses it at some level--even if they're unaware of what they're doing and therefore cannot maintain any consistency in its application.
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 #196
Okay, work with this: "...offer some positive and non-fallacious argument to support the philosophical viewpoint known as non-theism."ytrewq wrote:...EduChris, I can only work with what you wrote in your original posting...
If we throw out the notion that "non-theism is the default position," then we throw out the notion that we can reject theism on the mere possibility that theism might not be the case. What I'm looking for is any argument against theism which does not rely on the alleged "default" status of non-theism. If this was unclear to you at the start, I apologize and I assure you that I have made many clarifications on multiple posts so far on this thread.ytrewq wrote:...Why are you setting out to to show something that is already acknowledged to be true, namely, that 'theism need not be the case'...
Do you have any positive arguments? So far, no one has been able to come up with a workable argument that satisfies the usual criteria of: 1) logically coherent; 2) not contravened by evidence; and 3) in accord with standard and normal rules of epistemology.
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 #197
Hi Joey. From time to time I do check up on you to see if you have learned how to make an on-topic contributions to a thread. So far I haven't seen anything on-topic from you here on this thread, but I'll invite you to do so now. If you can come up with a valid argument (see the 3 criteria I've provided above) for any non-theistic position that doesn't simply rely on the supposed "default position" of non-theism, I'll respond to it. Just don't repeat the same stuff that's already been covered here; try to be original.JoeyKnothead wrote:...Alas, some prefer to remain ignorant of any challenges or refutations of their pet notions...
If you come up with an actual non-fallacious argument, I'll congratulate you as the first person yet to do so here. If you can't come up with an actual argument, there's no shame in that. At least you will have tried.
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 #198
I chose my words carefully. Arguments based on personal agency and the like that you are attempting to use here are not a part of science, and IMHO are nonsense. However, I agree that other aspects of epistemology are fine, so I'm happy to say we are both correct.EduChris wrote:According to Wikipedia, the following fields make use of epistemology: Education, artificial intelligence, mathematics, science, neurology, logic, etc.ytrewq wrote:...The type of epistemological arguments you are attempting here...are most definitely NOT used by scientists...pure junk...
I don't doubt that you make no conscious use of it, but still everyone uses it at some level--even if they're unaware of what they're doing and therefore cannot maintain any consistency in its application.
Post #199
I can't do that until you define non-theism, remembering that you have now had to reject your original definition of 'non-theism' that you gave in your first posting.
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 267 times
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #200You are saying any old answer is better than no answers.EduChris wrote: "No cause" is not an explanation; rather, it is a lack of an explanation.
This is why, as I have argued elsewhere: "If there is an explanation for our universe and our selves, then that explanation can only be theism."
Perhaps there just isn't an explanation. While that is a possibility, as rational beings we are obliged to seek explanations whenever they can be found. And theism is the only explanation which can be found.
You have no comments to the rest of my post?
Well you've certainly claimed it. I don't see any "showing."We have shown previously on this thread that the only form of less-than-personal causation is "necessity," and that "necessity" entails maximally profligate assumptions.
