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.

[Ionian_Tradition]

...We know that, by definition, immaterial minds lack the means to experience physical sensations...

Perhaps given your definition, but we need not adopt your definition. There is no reason to suggest that the source and fount of all possibility is "immaterial" per the definition you provide.

Either this mind exist separate and distinct from all physical possibilities, or this mind is a physical entity requiring a physical reality (not itself) in which to reside. Which is it?

...This is evidenced by the fact that such sensations would require that the physical world PHYSICALLY interact with that which is intrinsically non-physical in order to produce a physical experience. This is a blatant contradiction. A non-physical entity cannot PHYSICALLY interact with a physical entity lest it cease to be what it is, non-physical or immaterial...

You are simply assuming that the immaterial cannot interact with the material, just because you say so. This is an argument from ignorance; more than that, it contradicts our own daily experience of personal agency.

Read it again Chris. In order for something to physically interact with something else, it must logically possess physical properties with which to interact. If it lacked these properties, there would be nothing "physical" to interact with. This isn't wild speculation, it is deductive logic.

...If this mind is the fount of all possibilities then naturally it precedes all possibilities. Thus it cannot experience anything which it causally precedes....Which according to your argument, would be EVERYTHING other than itself...

This is just circular reasoning. If possibilities can be imagined, those same possibilities can be actualized via some causation. You are denying the capacity for imagination, which is to assume that the source and fount of all possibility must be less than personal...because it must be less than personal.

Nope. I'm showing that imagination requires conceptualization, which in turn requires experiential context in order to constitute intelligent thought. You're putting the cart before the horse by saying this mind, which causally precedes everything, can derive the experiences necessary to form coherent concepts prior to the creation of anything to experience other than itself. Nice try.

...Why are you assuming that an impersonal reality in which existing things reside should "know" anything? Why is conceptual knowledge requisite for natures to be what they are?...

Why is there something rather than nothing? Because, at some point, something was possible and something was actualized. There is information which is acted upon by some means. You are simply asserting that the conscious processing of information is somehow more limited than the unconscious processing of that same information.

I'm saying that unconscious processes are not subject to the logical constraints intrinsic to conscious agencies. Naturally the two are not one.

...Who says the rules are "written" in any sense familiar to us? Why should your anthropomorphic vision of a personal agency penning existence into being, be the only means by which things come to be as they are? THIS sound far more like an argument from ignorance...

I do not say "only." I say only that, so far as we can tell from our own experience, both necessity and agency can cause things to occur. You are the one attempting to rule out agency, even though that is the one causal mechanism which we experience every day in unmediated fashion.

I'm saying conceptual agency is subject to certain logical constraints which prevent us from concluding that such is the initial cause of ALL things.

...Logic and necessity do not "determine" natures in the sense you imply. They are not personal agencies capable of formulating abstract concepts upon which to act, and thus are not subject to the limitations of conceptual thought.

There is information, and then there is the processing of information. You are simply asserting that consciousness hinders information processing. Our daily experience indicates otherwise.

I've asserted no such thing. I am merely stating that conscious thought requires certain preconditions in order to get off the ground, namely experiential knowledge. The contextual knowledge necessary to form coherent concepts pertaining to any physical universe were not available to the mind of God prior their existence. Thus such knowledge could not have provided the context needed to ever conceive of a universe. Its not that consciousness hinders information processing, its that consciousness cannot process information it does not have access to.

[Bust Nak]

I am simply allowing for the possibility of each type of causation. Non-theism, by contrast, makes the profligate assumption that one type of causation is impossible altogether.

No it doesn't. Non-theism makes the assumption that "God" is impersonal. That's one assumption. The equvlent assumption on your side is that "God" is personal. Or not less than impersonal vs not less than personal if you insist. Alternative personal agency is impossible vs impersonal agency is impossible, is another way you've tried to framed the argument. Neither side makes more assumption than the other.

I am not saying that all possible worlds are actualized via personal agency. I am saying that if even one possible world is actualized via some sort of personal agency, then the source and fount of all possibility is not-less-than-personal.

In which case I will not say that all possible worlds are actualized via impersonal agency. I say that if even one possible world is actualized via some sort of impersonal agency, then the source and fount of all possibility is not-less-than-impersonal.

You keep trying to evade the force of the argument that non-theism insists that personal agency is impossible, whereas theism makes the more justified claim that it is possible.

Tried and successfully evaded: it's not the case that non-theism insists that personal agency is impossible, whereas theism makes the more justified claim that it is possible. You keep framing your position one way and oppositing position in another way, you aren't comparing like with like. When viewed within the same frame, our positions are equivalent.

But you are disputing it, that's why I keep bringing it up.

No, I readly accept that as far as epistemology is concerned, the assumption of "impossible" is always more profligate than the assumption of "possible." What I dispute is whether one side makes "impossible" claim and the other side "possible" claim.

Theism cares not for whether this or that universe is actualized via necessity or agency; rather, it is solely focused on the nature of the source of all possibility. If the source of all possibility is personal, then it is personal whether or not this universe was actualized via necessity.

In which case neither would non-theism cares for whether this or that universe is actualized via necessity or agency; rather, it is solely focused on the nature of the source of all possibility. If the source of all possibility is impersonal, then it is impersonal whether or not this universe was actualized via necessity.

[EduChris]

...Non-theism makes the assumption that "God" is impersonal. That's one assumption. The equvlent assumption on your side is that "God" is personal. Or not less than impersonal vs not less than personal if you insist. Alternative personal agency is impossible vs impersonal agency is impossible...

I suppose we're just repeating ourselves at this point, so don't be surprised if I don't comment any further on your posts (unless you come up with something new that hasn't already been addressed).

Both impersonal and personal causation are known; therefore, they must each be initially assumed possible, since the assumption of "possible" (for each) is epistemologically preferred over impossible. Theists are okay with this, since they do not need to argue that impersonal causation is impossible; theism survives even if some universes derive from impersonal means.

By contrast, the non-theist must entirely eliminate personal agency. If there is even one possible universe which derives from personal agency, then non-theism is refuted. Non-theists cannot justify their position unless personal agency is impossible--i.e., that strictly impersonal causation is involved for every possible universe. And impossible assumes more than possible.

Only non-theism needs to assume that anything is impossible; therefore, non-theism is less justified than theism. QED.

[LiamOS]

I suppose we're just repeating ourselves at this point, so don't be surprised if I don't comment any further on your posts (unless you come up with something new that hasn't already been addressed).

Both impersonal and personal causation are known; therefore, they must each be initially assumed possible, since the assumption of "possible" (for each) is epistemologically preferred over impossible. Theists are okay with this, since they do not need to argue that impersonal causation is impossible; theism survives even if some universes derive from impersonal means.

By contrast, the non-theist must entirely eliminate personal agency. If there is even one possible universe which derives from personal agency, then non-theism is refuted. Non-theists cannot justify their position unless personal agency is impossible--i.e., that strictly impersonal causation is involved for every possible universe. And impossible assumes more than possible.

Only non-theism needs to assume that anything is impossible; therefore, non-theism is less justified than theism. QED.

Does non-theism need to assume that 'personal' causation is possible? Surely it needs only to assume that it is not the case outside of the universe, or for the cause of the universe.

[EduChris]

...Does non-theism need to assume that 'personal' causation is possible?...

Personal causation is not so much an assumption as it is a fact which we experience every day, directly and in unmediated fashion. To assume there is no personal causation is to deny the most real thing we can ever know. But yes, personal causation might be just an illusion--just as the physical world might be just an illusion--but would be more reasonable to assume that impersonal causation is an illusion.

...Surely it needs only to assume that it is not the case outside of the universe...

To assume this is to assume that for every possible world, its ultimate cause cannot possibly be personal. A very big assumption.

...or for the cause of the universe.

Theism is not concerned so much with the causation of this or that universe; rather, it is concerned with the nature of the logically necessary source of all possibility. If this nature is less than personal, then personal causation is impossible for all universes. If it is not less than personal, then theism is the case.

[Bust Nak]

I suppose we're just repeating ourselves at this point, so don't be surprised if I don't comment any further on your posts (unless you come up with something new that hasn't already been addressed).

We've been repeating ourselves after our very first post really. But if you are happy to let me post unchallenged that's fine by me.

Both impersonal and personal causation are known; therefore, they must each be initially assumed possible, since the assumption of "possible" (for each) is epistemologically preferred over impossible. Theists are okay with this, since they do not need to argue that impersonal causation is impossible;

So are non-theists, we don't need to argue that personal causation is impossible.

theism survives even if some universes derive from impersonal means.

By contrast, the non-theist must entirely eliminate personal agency. If there is even one possible universe which derives from personal agency, then non-theism is refuted.

All universe are derive from the same "God" it's either less-than-personal or not-less-than-personal. It's not the case that there are seperate "Gods" that derive seperate universes. You are making one assumption on this "God" in one meta universe and I am making one assumption on this "God" in one meta universe. Possibility doesn't come into this.

And do you really think others theists would accept that the cause of this universe is impersonal? That they would throw their personal God (as opposed to "God" the source and fount of all possibility) under the bus to accept your argument? If this universe is derived from impersonal means, mainstream theism is refuted.

Non-theists cannot justify their position unless personal agency is impossible--i.e., that strictly impersonal causation is involved for every possible universe. And impossible assumes more than possible.

Only non-theism needs to assume that anything is impossible; therefore, non-theism is less justified than theism. QED.

As you can see, non-theism doesn't need to do that at all. Your argument is thus refuted. Or rather, I should start addressing the reader, since EduChris doesn't plan on replying: As the readers can see, non-theism doesn't need to do that at all. EduChris's argument is refuted.

[EduChris]

...Either this mind exist separate and distinct from all physical possibilities, or this mind is a physical entity requiring a physical reality (not itself) in which to reside. Which is it?...

This is the fallacy of the excluded middle, or an argument from ignorance. It's like, "either this water must exist separate and distinct from ice, or else water is merely ice and therfore requires a working freezer in which to reside."

Do we measure magnetism? Or do we merely measure the regular effects of magnetism? How can we measure magnetism unless we measure the effects. We can see the effects, and we can predict the effects, but we still don't know what magnetism is in its ontological reality.

...In order for something to physically interact with something else, it must logically possess physical properties with which to interact. If it lacked these properties, there would be nothing "physical" to interact with. This isn't wild speculation, it is deductive logic...

That's akin to saying, "In order for something to solidly interact with something else, it must logically possess the properties of being solid. If water lacked the properties of solidness, then there would be nothing solid to interact with."

Why can't solids and liquids (or even gases) interact? If solids and liquids can interact, so can the material and the supramaterial or the transmaterial.

And what is a "solid" anyway? It's just an arrangement of strings of energy and mostly empty space. Same is true for liquids and gases. What seems obvious at one level becomes very murky at another level. Who is to say that our physical world is anything more than just the immaterial dream of a conscious reality which we cannot ever fathom.

Funny how the non-theist can reject personal agency--the most real thing we can ever know--and then insist on making absolute assertions on things which we do not know and may never know.

...I'm showing that imagination requires conceptualization, which in turn requires experiential context in order to constitute intelligent thought. You're putting the cart before the horse by saying this mind, which causally precedes everything, can derive the experiences necessary to form coherent concepts prior to the creation of anything to experience other than itself...

Again you assume a mind which is subject to arbitrary limitations. You have never seen the ultimate source of all possibility, and so you are not qualified to make such triumphalistic pronouncements.

...unconscious processes are not subject to the logical constraints intrinsic to conscious agencies. Naturally the two are not one...

How do you know that at the ultimate level, there is any such thing as unconscious properties?

...conceptual agency is subject to certain logical constraints which prevent us from concluding that such is the initial cause of ALL things...

You are simply asserting this, having no knowledge of what you speak. For you, just because you think something is true, you assume it must be true. But you haven't shown why anyone should agree with you.

...conscious thought requires certain preconditions in order to get off the ground, namely experiential knowledge...

You can't know this to be true, and you can't demonstrate it logically. It is just an empty pronouncement.

...The contextual knowledge necessary to form coherent concepts pertaining to any physical universe were not available to the mind of God prior their existence...

How do you know this?

...Thus such knowledge could not have provided the context needed to ever conceive of a universe. Its not that consciousness hinders information processing, its that consciousness cannot process information it does not have access to.

It sure can. I can generalize, extrapolate, imagine, dream, create. Many people claim to have experienced altered states of mind, where where they have become aware of realities not previously known to them and which they cannot put into words.

Unfortunately, I think the only thing we're accomplishing is talking past one another.

[EduChris]

...do you really think others theists would accept that the cause of this universe is impersonal? That they would throw their personal God (as opposed to "God" the source and fount of all possibility) under the bus to accept your argument?...

A religious theist might not accept that possibility, based on the revelation that theists accept on other grounds. However, religious theism is not the direct comparison to non-theism. If you want to compare apples to apples, then you can only directly compare non-theism against a bare philosophical theism.

But anyway, if the "nearly nothing" universe is a possible universe, as it seems to be, then any universe such as ours would have to be contingent, which means it cannot be necessary. And if our universe is not necessary, then it can only have derived via personal agency.

So ultimately the religious theist and the philosophical theist have very good justification for the view that our universe derives from personal agency. The contrary view requires more assumptions.

[Artie]

But anyway, if the "nearly nothing" universe is a possible universe, as it seems to be, then any universe such as ours would have to be contingent, which means it cannot be necessary. And if our universe is not necessary, then it can only have derived via personal agency.

Why just universes? Why not you? Are you necessary or were you personally made by your personal agency?

So ultimately the religious theist and the philosophical theist have very good justification for the view that our universe derives from personal agency. The contrary view requires more assumptions.

No it doesn't.

"Epistemology and Atheism"
"Atheism is the only system that works within the worldview of Spartan Meritocracy. Therefore atheism is sensible, theism is not."
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/baroque.html

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 231:

...How dare you accuse me of "repeating" arguments...

Consider this my third and final invitation for you to contribute to this thread per the parameters of the OP and post #201.

Or what? You're gonna click that ignore button once again in an effort to ensure you never even hafta see the arguments of your critics?

Go the heck ahead; I've come to expect that many a theist'll not cotton to any notion they ain't either proud of, or able to refute.

Notice here, there's no attempt to understand why I may consider my points pertinent to the OP - only an ignorance of why I do. Notice there's no attempt to understand a dissenting argument - only an ignorance as to why one sits there doing all the dissenting.

Only a dismissal based on ignorance of the argument I put forth.

This is the god concept in action. Where ignorance of an opposing argument remains, just ignore that argument and declare one has somehow failed to get there - while never saying or showing why they fail.

Ignorance (technical term). Borne of incredulity and the need for the human mind to find it some comfort 'cause of they either have to little or not enough of it.

I challenge anyone to show where the poster in question has been made a moderator, that he could dare display this kind of arrogance at his dissenters. I further challenge anyone to show where the poster in question has made any attempt at understanding the arguments of one who speaks against his pet notions.

Y'all go ahead, we'll wait.

It is my firm conviction that what we are seeing is the very incredulity and ignorance (technical term), that brings about the god concept.

"Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?"

Heck yeah - the complete and utter inability of folks claiming there's a god 'up there' to show they speak truth! But to heck with all that, let's ask if y'all ain't ever spanned the entire known universe to show he ain't!

In the ignorance of what I may have to allow, this'n refuses to ask how I got to it, and instead attempts to declare I ain't contributed the first lick. All the while unawares that the observer may think I have. Or ain't, as the case me be

Instead, they declare I ain't even addressed their deal there. Why? 'Cause ignorance (technical term) is what this is about. Ignorance and incredulity (technical on both of that) and if you don't say what I need you to say so I can possibly put up a defense, then you done fouled out and none of us oughta be proud for ya. Not to mention we ought'n be proud about a dude just declaring someone ain't lived up to it while refusing to show why he ain't.

Who else but the ignorant of one's contributions may ever be so proud as to declare one ain't contributed?

The god folks. 'Cause they'll fill the gaps in their knowledge with everything and anything but truth. And they'll declare you ain't done that which ya just sat there and did, only they don't understand it, so they use their ignorance as an excuse to say such as, "na-ah, and if you dare speak again I'll hit that ignore button so fast Einstein himself'll start questioning the speed of light".

Just ask 'em.

Ask 'em to show their god's a-sittin' up there.

But don't be too upset when they click that ignore button when you do.

Why?

'Cause ignorance is the first step, and the final solution, solving that whole problem of ignorance (technical term).

You dare tell me I've not addressed your OP?

I dare say you're too danged ignorant (technical term) to understand that I have.

Or at least too ignorant (technical term) to ask just why I think I did. As evidenced by your failure to say such as, "Huh?"

You dare accuse me of not addressing your OP, while you sit there incapable of understanding that I did?

Yeah, that's as "non-fallacious" as ya can't buy grits on credit.

"Non-fallacious argument for non-theism?"

Your inability to understand why folks don't just accept a god's a-sittin' there just cause you say so!