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
-
Ionian_Tradition
- Sage
- Posts: 739
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:46 pm
- Been thanked: 14 times
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #221Ok I'll bite. Let's try this one just for fun: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.
My argument flows from 2 hierarchical phases, the latter phase being predicated upon the reasoning established in the former:
PHASE 1
All true thought, if it is to be named such, requires contextualization to some degree.
Experience is that which provides thought its context.
In order for a mind to form substantive thoughts, it must rely on its own subjective experience to apply to its thoughts the necessary measure of context true thought demands.
We might then say that thought is contingent upon experience.
PHASE 2
A mind which cannot form coherent thoughts is not capable of producing thoughts conducive with personhood (intelligent thought).
A immaterial mind, by nature, lacks the physical apparatus necessary to experience anything beyond its own thoughts. Therefore, it naturally requires experience of its own thoughts in order to form the contextual basis for intelligible thoughts conducive with personhood.
The experience of thought required to contextualize, and thus conceive, any intelligible thought cannot precede the existence of thought itself. Therefore we may draw the following conclusions:
1. Personhood (intelligent thought) is contingent upon experience (contextualized thoughts cannot form without some experiential referent).
2. A immaterial mind's experience of thought cannot precede its own thoughts (thoughts must first exist in order to be experienced).
3. It follows from 1 & 2 that a non-contingent personal mind cannot logically exist.
4. From 3, Theism is false.
Post #222
What we all agree on is that we can't be certain, one way or the other. In the same way, we can't be certain that evolution is true--after all, it could be just a hoax perpetrated by some advanced alien race or something.ytrewq wrote:...say I proved to you beyond all reasonable doubt that there were three apples in a shoebox, by removing the lid and showing you. Would it not be a complete waste of time asking for 'additional evidence' for something that had already been proven beyond all doubt? Do you 'get it'?...
Given the radical uncertainty of our human condition, the relevant question becomes, "What can we feel confident about, despite the lack of absolute certainty? What beliefs are more justified than others on rational grounds?"
For example, in the case of the "evolution-is-a-hoax-perpetrated-by-aliens" hypothesis, we ought to be able to advance a number of arguments against the notion that evolution is a hoax. We would do so by presenting any and all positive arguments at our disposal for the proposition that evolution is not a hoax. Our arguments would include, but hopefully not be limited to, the "aliens need not exist" argument.
So, anyway, based on the results of this thread, it appears that there is not even a single non-fallacious argument against theism, other than the "we-can't-be certain-either-way" argument. If we can't be certain either way, why should it be considered (by some) irrational to adopt theism as a tentative working hypothesis? Is it rational or irrational (or both? or neither?) to claim that theism is unjustified? Perhaps that will be another thread, but I'll give this thread a bit more time first.
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 #223
An "unknown" conclusion leaves the case open indefinitely. They are called "cold cases" if my prime time TV expertise is correct. So the default position would not be "unknown" but rather "not yet solved".Fuzzy Dunlop wrote: If at the end of the investigation no evidence strong enough to lead to any particular cause of death, the conclusion (such as it is) remains at the default position of "unknown."
"I believe in no religion. There is absolutely no proof for any of them, and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best. All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man’s own invention..."
C.S. Lewis
C.S. Lewis
-
Fuzzy Dunlop
- Guru
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am
Post #224
What's the difference? Sounds like semantics to me.olavisjo wrote:An "unknown" conclusion leaves the case open indefinitely. They are called "cold cases" if my prime time TV expertise is correct. So the default position would not be "unknown" but rather "not yet solved".Fuzzy Dunlop wrote: If at the end of the investigation no evidence strong enough to lead to any particular cause of death, the conclusion (such as it is) remains at the default position of "unknown."
Post #225
I am genuinely sorry EduChris, but you were and are simply wrong.EduChris wrote:What we all agree on is that we can't be certain, one way or the other. In the same way, we can't be certain that evolution is true--after all, it could be just a hoax perpetrated by some advanced alien race or something.ytrewq wrote:...say I proved to you beyond all reasonable doubt that there were three apples in a shoebox, by removing the lid and showing you. Would it not be a complete waste of time asking for 'additional evidence' for something that had already been proven beyond all doubt? Do you 'get it'?...
Given the radical uncertainty of our human condition, the relevant question becomes, "What can we feel confident about, despite the lack of absolute certainty? What beliefs are more justified than others on rational grounds?"
For example, in the case of the "evolution-is-a-hoax-perpetrated-by-aliens" hypothesis, we ought to be able to advance a number of arguments against the notion that evolution is a hoax. We would do so by presenting any and all positive arguments at our disposal for the proposition that evolution is not a hoax. Our arguments would include, but hopefully not be limited to, the "aliens need not exist" argument.
So, anyway, based on the results of this thread, it appears that there is not even a single non-fallacious argument against theism, other than the "we-can't-be certain-either-way" argument. If we can't be certain either way, why should it be considered (by some) irrational to adopt theism as a tentative working hypothesis? Is it rational or irrational (or both? or neither?) to claim that theism is unjustified? Perhaps that will be another thread, but I'll give this thread a bit more time first.
I provided a single, precise, non-fallacious, beyond-all-reasonable-doubt argument to show that theism need not be the case.
The only way you can discredit my argument is to prove that God exists, and you cannot do so. My argument is NOT a 'we can't be certain either way' type of argument.
Theism need not be the case is true, unless and until it can be proven that God exists.
That is the end of the matter.
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2576 times
Post #226
From Post 222:
One is within their right to draw such a conclusion. Such a condition doesn't mean the conclusion is correct, as Ionian_Tradition so elegantly shows in his Post 221.EduChris wrote: ...
So, anyway, based on the results of this thread, it appears that there is not even a single non-fallacious argument against theism, other than the "we-can't-be certain-either-way" argument.
When that hypothesis postulates a sentient, thinking entity, while disregarding all we know about such, well there we go. Thought is best concluded to be a product of the physical, and any proposition that some sentient entity has come along before the creation of matter is heading in the wrong direction.EduChris wrote: If we can't be certain either way, why should it be considered (by some) irrational to adopt theism as a tentative working hypothesis?
Irrational, on the basis that all we know of thought, of sentience, of consciousness, is that it is the product of the material world in which we find ourselves.EduChris wrote: Is it rational or irrational (or both? or neither?) to claim that theism is unjustified?
Given your penchant for placing dissenters on your infamous "ignore" list, I propose time ain't gonna help ya a bit in understanding the arguments you choose to ignore.EduChris wrote: Perhaps that will be another thread, but I'll give this thread a bit more time first.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #227How do we know this? Why should we believe it to be true? When do we know that the "to some degree" turns into "to some sufficient degree"?Ionian_Tradition wrote:...All true thought, if it is to be named such, requires contextualization to some degree...
Experience of what? The material world? How do we know that the material world exists? All we know with any certainty is that "thoughts are occurring."Ionian_Tradition wrote:...Experience is that which provides thought its context...
Even if this were true of a finite mind, what evidence do we have that this is true for a mind which provides the context for all reality?Ionian_Tradition wrote:...In order for a mind to form substantive thoughts, it must rely on its own subjective experience to apply to its thoughts the necessary measure of context true thought demands...
Or we might say that finite experience is contingent upon possibilities actualized from the imagination of unbounded thought.Ionian_Tradition wrote:...We might then say that thought is contingent upon experience...
I can agree with this.Ionian_Tradition wrote:...A mind which cannot form coherent thoughts is not capable of producing thoughts conducive with personhood (intelligent thought)...
How do we know this? How many immaterial minds have you studied?Ionian_Tradition wrote:...A immaterial mind, by nature, lacks the physical apparatus necessary to experience anything beyond its own thoughts...
Why cannot thought provide its own contextual basis?Ionian_Tradition wrote:...Therefore, it naturally requires experience of its own thoughts in order to form the contextual basis for intelligible thoughts conducive with personhood...
It must proceed in temporal sequence? What if unbounded thought is not arbitrarily limited in any spatio-temporal dimensions?Ionian_Tradition wrote:...The experience of thought required to contextualize, and thus conceive, any intelligible thought cannot precede the existence of thought itself...
This argument begins and ends with assumptions which cannot be supported through evidence or reason; therefore, nothing whatsoever can be concluded.Ionian_Tradition wrote:...Therefore we may draw the following conclusions...
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 #228
I applaud Ionian_Tradition for complying with the parameters of the OP, despite my inability to find anything but untethered speculation in his argument.JoeyKnothead wrote:...Ionian_Tradition so elegantly shows...
But Joey, why should anyone bother to read your posts unless you can offer your own arguments--on-topic, substantive, and not just repeating or cheerleading what others have said?
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
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2576 times
Post #229
From Post 228:
Click off that ignore button, get your points in, and then click it right back on!
It's my firm conviction that you can't refute many of your opponents, so you declare 'em "uncivil", but, God forbid, on the off chance you see they've responded, and you feel you have something, you'll turn that ignore button off, and you'll hop in with whatever it is you feel pertinent. But by all that's holy, just as soon as it doesn't go your way, they're the "uncivil" ones and you can sit proud in ignorance of their refutations and arguments.
It's my contention, and I'm willing to support it, that you ignore anyone and any argument that you personally feel incapable of arguing against, and that when you find you a spot of courage, you hop in with this "what argument" angle. I propose that if you'd actually dare to even see the arguments put against you, you wouldn't even hafta ask the question about what arguments are put against ya.
I propose that if you were capable of defending your own arguments, or refuting the arguments of others, you'd not feel the need to ignore 'em at the first sign of your discomfort. Instead, I propose, you'd deal with 'em on a case by case basis, and let the chips fall where they may.
Alas, you seem only capable of turning that ignore button off for just long enough to express incredulity (aka argumentum ad ignorantiam) at why some folks may disagree. I propose that if you'd actually start reading the arguments of those with whom you disagree, you wouldn't hafta play this, "oh, my stars, what argument might you have" game. Or at least you'd see that I actually do have various arguments, only you seem only ever to have the courage to unbutton those arguments I present that address the repeated claims of others.
But that ain't cool, is it? No, instead of understanding that in all this there's gonna be some repeating, you can't fathom why the repeated claims of theists must be repeatedly challenged, 'cause there they sit, them theists keep repeating the same claims I hafta sit over here and keep repeatedly challenging.
I propose that only upon engaging those who disagree with you, will you ever understand why they do disagree. I further propose that you've got a lot of dadgum temerity in accusing me of repeating my situation, when we've some of us about had it up to here with your repeating that whole "font of the be all and end all and y'all ain't rational if ya disagree - even if I gotta ignore ya to set myself to keep repeating all that".
Here again we get your typical ploy of placing folks on that ignore list of yours, at least until you find you enough intellectual courage to engage. But don't it beat all, your ignorance of those arguments against you, borne of the fact you set it up so those arguments never even show in your browser has you incredulous as to what those arguments may be. Yours is the most pernicious form of debate - Ignore until courage is found, hop in there all incredulous - and then hop right back out when it gets put to you.
How on God's green earth can you know all I ever do is "repeat" arguments, when you're so dang fast to click that ignore button? How on God's green earth can you know I repeat my arguments when you make it so you don't even hafta be discomforted in seein' 'em?
How on God's green earth is it acceptable for you to "repeat" your same arguments - all the while ignoring any refutations or challenges thereof?
The god concept, that's how. Where confusion and discombobulation reigns; ignore, ignore, ignore. Where some small spot of courage crops up, click off that ignore button, and declare your opponent does nothing but repeat his refutations of your repeated claims and arguments. But keep your finger on that button, lest you and your arguments get all manner of upset!
You go right on ahead and click that button like I know you're gonna do, and put your challenger back on ignore. That does seem to be your best "argument".
Click it, like I know you will.
Click it, like so many theists I've encountered who declare any disagreement "Satanic", "rude", "uncivil", or "anything but I by golly don't wanna wrestle with it"!
How dare you accuse me of "repeating" arguments when it's obvious you've set it so you don't even need to seem 'em - and for sure when you repeat some of your own - and all the while ignoring any refutations of your repeated arguments.
Click off that ignore button, get your points in, and then click it right back on!
How on God's green earth might you ever know a poster has responded on point, when you're so dead set to ignore 'em when they disagree?EduChris wrote: I applaud Ionian_Tradition for complying with the parameters of the OP, despite my inability to find anything but untethered speculation in his argument.
But Joey, why should anyone bother to read your posts unless you can offer your own arguments--on-topic, substantive, and not just repeating or cheerleading what others have said?
It's my firm conviction that you can't refute many of your opponents, so you declare 'em "uncivil", but, God forbid, on the off chance you see they've responded, and you feel you have something, you'll turn that ignore button off, and you'll hop in with whatever it is you feel pertinent. But by all that's holy, just as soon as it doesn't go your way, they're the "uncivil" ones and you can sit proud in ignorance of their refutations and arguments.
It's my contention, and I'm willing to support it, that you ignore anyone and any argument that you personally feel incapable of arguing against, and that when you find you a spot of courage, you hop in with this "what argument" angle. I propose that if you'd actually dare to even see the arguments put against you, you wouldn't even hafta ask the question about what arguments are put against ya.
I propose that if you were capable of defending your own arguments, or refuting the arguments of others, you'd not feel the need to ignore 'em at the first sign of your discomfort. Instead, I propose, you'd deal with 'em on a case by case basis, and let the chips fall where they may.
Alas, you seem only capable of turning that ignore button off for just long enough to express incredulity (aka argumentum ad ignorantiam) at why some folks may disagree. I propose that if you'd actually start reading the arguments of those with whom you disagree, you wouldn't hafta play this, "oh, my stars, what argument might you have" game. Or at least you'd see that I actually do have various arguments, only you seem only ever to have the courage to unbutton those arguments I present that address the repeated claims of others.
But that ain't cool, is it? No, instead of understanding that in all this there's gonna be some repeating, you can't fathom why the repeated claims of theists must be repeatedly challenged, 'cause there they sit, them theists keep repeating the same claims I hafta sit over here and keep repeatedly challenging.
I propose that only upon engaging those who disagree with you, will you ever understand why they do disagree. I further propose that you've got a lot of dadgum temerity in accusing me of repeating my situation, when we've some of us about had it up to here with your repeating that whole "font of the be all and end all and y'all ain't rational if ya disagree - even if I gotta ignore ya to set myself to keep repeating all that".
Here again we get your typical ploy of placing folks on that ignore list of yours, at least until you find you enough intellectual courage to engage. But don't it beat all, your ignorance of those arguments against you, borne of the fact you set it up so those arguments never even show in your browser has you incredulous as to what those arguments may be. Yours is the most pernicious form of debate - Ignore until courage is found, hop in there all incredulous - and then hop right back out when it gets put to you.
How on God's green earth can you know all I ever do is "repeat" arguments, when you're so dang fast to click that ignore button? How on God's green earth can you know I repeat my arguments when you make it so you don't even hafta be discomforted in seein' 'em?
How on God's green earth is it acceptable for you to "repeat" your same arguments - all the while ignoring any refutations or challenges thereof?
The god concept, that's how. Where confusion and discombobulation reigns; ignore, ignore, ignore. Where some small spot of courage crops up, click off that ignore button, and declare your opponent does nothing but repeat his refutations of your repeated claims and arguments. But keep your finger on that button, lest you and your arguments get all manner of upset!
You go right on ahead and click that button like I know you're gonna do, and put your challenger back on ignore. That does seem to be your best "argument".
Click it, like I know you will.
Click it, like so many theists I've encountered who declare any disagreement "Satanic", "rude", "uncivil", or "anything but I by golly don't wanna wrestle with it"!
How dare you accuse me of "repeating" arguments when it's obvious you've set it so you don't even need to seem 'em - and for sure when you repeat some of your own - and all the while ignoring any refutations of your repeated arguments.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
-
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 #230But it can, that's the point. In some possible universe there might be nothing.EduChris wrote: I don't see your logic here at all. For example, the statement, "It might be the case that nothing exists," runs afoul of the obvious fact of our existence. Therefore, it cannot possibly be the case that "nothing exists."
For any one possible world either they exist or they don't. If infact they don't, then by your argument, they don't exist necessarily. If infact they do, then they do necessarily. What you are calling a contingent, is simply an unknown.On the other hand, if we say, "It might be the case that no leprechauns exist," that statement is not contradicted by logic or by any known body of facts.
What possibility? Your reasoning have rule that out, everything is necessarity true because they match certain facts or necessarity false because they don't match any facts. Is the statement China is in Europe contingent? It runs afoul of the obvious fact that China is in Asia. Would you therefore conclude that, it cannot possibly be the case that "China is in Europe"?Leprechauns might exist in some possible universe, but it is not immediately and obviously necessary (logically or empirically) that any should actually exist in any universe. Therefore, we are justified in assuming that leprechauns are contingent.
Even after I explained it? Let me think of a different way. In some possible universe, God exist, in other universes, God don't exist.You're being too cryptic for me. I can't see any point to your statement.
But that "something" is not in any world, as opposed to something that is in every world - there are worlds where nothing exists. This "something" makes the possibility of nothing existing possible.Again I am not following your logic. The "something" which "exists necessarily" is "that which gives rise to any and all actualities." There cannot not exist this "something which gives rise to any and all actualities" if in fact anything at all (such as our universe) exists.
No, non-theism relies on one assumption - that it "isn't" in this world.But regarding personal agency, non-theism relies on an assumption of "impossible," which pertains to all possible worlds.
Just like the non-theist position.The theist's assumption of "possible," is more privitive since it need pertain to only one possible world.
