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 #201
I have not rejected my original definition of non-theism. I am simply trying to collect a list of all the reasons why "theism need not be the case."ytrewq wrote:...you have now had to reject your original definition of 'non-theism' that you gave in your first posting.
We start by acknowledging that all sides in the debate understand that we lack certainty, we don't know that theism is the case (or that it isn't the case). No one suggests that we can put God under a microscope for observation, or cross-examine God in a court of law. If absolute, objective, empirical certainty were the criteria, then there would be no theists (and no atheists) at all. But unfortunately there is little in life that allows for absolute, objective, empirical certainty; we live our daily lives always in the shadow of ignorance and uncertainty and doubt. And yet, somehow, we manage to get out of bed each morning, even though we can't be sure that the ground will continue to support us as it has in the past.
Therefore, let's set aside, for the moment, the non-theist's most cherished objection that "we can't be certain that theism is the case." We don't set this objection aside permanently; when we're all done listing all of the other arguments for non-theism, the "we can't be certain" argument can re-enter the conversation. But by leaving it aside for the moment, we can focus on all of the other reasons why "theism need not be the case." And if we're lucky, in the end we will have arrived at a more enlightened state of uncertainty.
Specifically, I am trying to get a list of all the positive arguments for non-theism. So far, we have seen LiamOS offer speculation. We have seen Haven offer the "Argument from Evil." And we have seen DivineInsight offer the "Argument from Divine Hiddenness." An argument from pure speculation seems to be a back-handed way of sneaking the "we can't be certain" objection back into the conversation, so LiamOS's argument fails. The Argument from Evil and the Argument from Divine Hiddenness both rely on unsupportable assumptions, and so these arguments also fail at the logical level (though not always at the emotional level).
What other arguments, besides than ones mentioned above, can we present on behalf of non-theism? Please try to ensure that your argument entails: 1) no logical contradiction; 2) no contravening body of evidence; and 3) no suspension or violation of standard and normal rules of epistemology.
Last edited by EduChris on Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:09 am, edited 5 times 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
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #202If something is "logically necessary," it is true in all possible worlds. In assuming "logical necessity," then, you are making an assumption about all possible worlds, rather than just the one known world which we call home.
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
-
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 #203And hence you can conclude that your "logically nexessary" not-less-than-personal causation entails maximally profligate assumptions and should be discarded?EduChris wrote:If something is "logically necessary," it is true in all possible worlds. In assuming "logical necessity," then, you are making an assumption about all possible worlds, rather than just the one known world which we call home.
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #204You are confusing and conflating two separate issues.Bust Nak wrote:...And hence you can conclude that your "logically nexessary" not-less-than-personal causation entails maximally profligate assumptions and should be discarded?
There must be some source and fount of all possibility. This is demostrable by pure logic; for if there were no such source and fount of all possibility, then there could be no possibility that we are here. But this contradicts the fact that we are here. Since the attempted negation of the source and fount of all possibility entails an immediate and obvious contradiction, it cannot be negated--it cannot not be, and therefore it is logically necessary. This is not an assumption, but rather the valid conclusion of logic.
Now that we have concluded that there must be some logically necessary source and fount of all possibility, we turn our attention to the second question. What causal factors does this logically necessary source and fount of all possibility have at its disposal in order to actualize possibilities? We know of only two causal mechanisms: necessity and agency. If we try to rule out agency by assuming that personal agency is impossible, then we have made an a priori assumption about all possible worlds (i.e., if something is assumed to be logically impossible, it is assumed to be false in all possible worlds). By contrast, the assumption of possibility need only involve a single possible world. Therefore, the assumption that personal agency is possible is considered "more privative" than the the assumption that personal agency is impossible. And per the rules of epistemology, we must always opt for that assumption which is most privative.
Now I invite you to move back on topic, per this post.
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
-
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 #205No, I am pointing out that there are no difference between your not-less-than-personal cause and the alternative as far as the "standard rules of epistemology" goes.
Granted.There must be some source and fount of all possibility. This is demostrable by pure logic; for if there were no such source and fount of all possibility, then there could be no possibility that we are here. But this contradicts the fact that we are here. Since the attempted negation of the source and fount of all possibility entails an immediate and obvious contradiction, it cannot be negated--it cannot not be, and therefore it is logically necessary. This is not an assumption, but rather the valid conclusion of logic.
With the caveat mentioned already re: no cause or randomness.Now that we have concluded that there must be some logically necessary source and fount of all possibility, we turn our attention to the second question. What causal factors does this logically necessary source and fount of all possibility have at its disposal in order to actualize possibilities? We know of only two causal mechanisms: necessity and agency.
Which is entirely unnecessarily for the purpose of showing "theism need not be the case."If we try to rule out agency by assuming that personal agency is impossible, then we have made an a priori assumption about all possible worlds (i.e., if something is assumed to be logically impossible, it is assumed to be false in all possible worlds). By contrast, the assumption of possibility need only involve a single possible world. Therefore, the assumption that personal agency is possible is considered "more privative" than the the assumption that personal agency is impossible. And per the rules of epistemology, we must always opt for that assumption which is most privative.
If we try to rule out non-theism by assuming that impersonal cause is impossible, then we have made an a priori assumption about all possible worlds (i.e., if something is assumed to be logically impossible, it is assumed to be false in all possible worlds). By contrast, the assumption of possibility need only involve a single possible world. Therefore, the assumption that non theism is possible is considered "more privative" than the the assumption that non theism is impossible. And per the rules of epistemology, we must always opt for that assumption which is most privative.
-
Peter
- Guru
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:46 pm
- Location: Cape Canaveral
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #206I agree, in order for us to exist there must be existence. No need to complicate it by calling it the "source and fount of all possibility".EduChris wrote:
There must be some source and fount of all possibility. This is demostrable by pure logic; for if there were no such source and fount of all possibility, then there could be no possibility that we are here. But this contradicts the fact that we are here. Since the attempted negation of the source and fount of all possibility entails an immediate and obvious contradiction, it cannot be negated--it cannot not be, and therefore it is logically necessary. This is not an assumption, but rather the valid conclusion of logic.
I prefer the Humean Theory of Causation - there is no underlying causal nature, causal power, or causal necessity. Stuff just happens...Now that we have concluded that there must be some logically necessary source and fount of all possibility, we turn our attention to the second question. What causal factors does this logically necessary source and fount of all possibility have at its disposal in order to actualize possibilities? We know of only two causal mechanisms: necessity and agency. If we try to rule out agency by assuming that personal agency is impossible, then we have made an a priori assumption about all possible worlds (i.e., if something is assumed to be logically impossible, it is assumed to be false in all possible worlds). By contrast, the assumption of possibility need only involve a single possible world. Therefore, the assumption that personal agency is possible is considered "more privative" than the the assumption that personal agency is impossible. And per the rules of epistemology, we must always opt for that assumption which is most privative.
Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #207Theism does not have any need to assume that impersonal causes are impossible. For the theist, both causal mechanisms are possible, both might coexist together.Bust Nak wrote:...If we try to rule out non-theism by assuming that impersonal cause is impossible...
But the non-theist cannot grant the possibility of personal agency. If personal agency is an ultimate cause for even one possible world, then non-theism is refuted (given the definition of theism provided in the OP). And so the non-theist must assume the impossibility that any personal agency should inhere within the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility.
Now I invite you to move back on topic, per this post.
Last edited by EduChris on Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:15 pm, 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
-
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 #208Not for the "source and fount of all possibility."EduChris wrote: Theism does not have any need to assume that impersonal causes are impossible. For the theist, both causal mechanisms are possible, both might coexist together.
Sure we can. Just not for the "source and fount of all possibility."But the non-theist cannot grant the possibility of personal agency.
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #209Why not? Why can the theist not allow for both causal mechanisms to coexist within the source and fount of all possibility? There is no logical incompatibility, no reason for the theist to prefer "agency alone" over "agency and necessity combined."
Precisely. The non-theist cannot allow for any element of personal agency within the source and fount of all possibility. If the non-theist allows that any element of personal agency might inhere within the source and fount of all possibility, then non-theism is immediately and instantly refuted.Bust Nak wrote:Sure we can. Just not for the "source and fount of all possibility."But the non-theist cannot grant the possibility of personal agency.
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
-
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 #210The source and fount of all possibility is either personal or not personal. It's a true dichotomy.EduChris wrote: Why not? Why can the theist not allow for both causal mechanisms to coexist within the source and fount of all possibility? There is no logical incompatibility, no reason for the theist to prefer "agency alone" over "agency and necessity combined."
Correct.Precisely. The non-theist cannot allow for any element of personal agency within the source and fount of all possibility. If the non-theist allows that any element of personal agency might inhere within the source and fount of all possibility, then non-theism is immediately and instantly refuted.
