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
Post #371
This has been explained numerous times over the course of this discussion. Uncontextualized thoughts cannot logically exist as coherent/intelligible thought (the concept of "pain" is meaningless without reference to sensation"). Context is only derived through experience (sensation can only be known through experience). Thus coherent concepts cannot emerge in the absence of some experiential framework from which to form. The same applies to all concepts of properties intrinsic to our universe.EduChris wrote:This is the heart of the problem with your argument. Our finite minds have a beginning, and therefore we need to learn; but why should you or anyone else suppose the same should be true of a mind which has no beginning and which intrinsically conceives or creates all possibilities?Ionian_Tradition wrote:...a mind cannot choose what does not first exist...objects of choice will always precede choice itself...some non-choosing entity will always exist ontologically prior to thoughtful choice...If there is no experiential context available from which to form a particular concept (e.g. spacial location), it cannot be conceived.
Experiential referent precedes conceptualization in that it first lends context to any potential concept. In the absence of context, concepts are made incoherent and thus cannot constitute intelligent thought. From this we can conclude that in order for conceptualized objects of choice to exist, some prior experience of an actualized reality must exist prior to the emergence of any coherent concept.EduChris wrote: Let's just change a few things from your quote, above, as follows:Why is the first quote from you any more logical or necessary than the second?...a mind cannot actualize what is not first conceptualized...conceptualized objects of choice will always precede actualization itself...some conceptualization will always precede thoughtful choice...If there is no conceptualized context available from which to actualize a particular concept (e.g. spacial location), it cannot be actualized...
Post #372
You are simply asserting that the chicken must come before the egg, without stopping to consider that perhaps the egg comes before the chicken.Ionian_Tradition wrote:...Experiential referent precedes conceptualization...
Again, I see that you are quite smitten with your assertions, but unless you can work them into some sort of a valid argument we're never going to be able to discuss the matter intelligently. You can't just assume the consequent and then suppose you have resolved the matter.
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 #373All of that is irrelevant to this thread. Although we have gotten off-topic numerous times, we're simply trying to discover all of the positive arguments there are for the view that the universe more likely than not arose through impersonal causation.Darias wrote:...if a believer claims that something is true without evidence, and the skeptic responds with "that need not be the case," the believer cannot respond: "haha, your position is easily dismissed as you lack evidence," without being extremely hypocritical.
Do you have any argument to support the view that the universe did arise through impersonal means? Do you have any argument to support the view that the universe could not have arisen through personal causation? Do you have any argument to support the view that impersonal causation is epistemically preferred over the only known alternative?
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 #375Whatever the "logically necessary source of all possibility" might be, and whether it is less-than-personal or not, it is quite beyond your "ability to logically assess" no less than mine. In other words, our common inability to fathom what lies beyond affects the non-theist as much as the theist.Ionian_Tradition wrote:...If your God is so far removed from your ability to logically assess, what could you have hoped to accomplish by debating this issue?...
Or we could ask, "What conceptualizations were necessary in order to actualize the dimensionality that we experience?Ionian_Tradition wrote:...from what experiential referent has God acquired the context necessary to render such notions of dimensionality intelligible? I am increasingly persuaded that haven't the slightest clue...
You are so wedded to your assumptions that you cannot even step back to see that they are unfounded chicken-vs-egg assertions.
"Conceptualization precedes actualization. You've yet to present a viable means by which such might logically be..."Ionian_Tradition wrote:...Experiential context precedes conceptualization. You've yet to present a viable means by which such might logically be achieved...
I'm simply responding with various possibilities which undercut your unfounded assertions. Actualized dimensions stem from God's prior conceptualization of such, and we need not suppose that God is ever absent or removed from any actualized dimension.Ionian_Tradition wrote:...Moreover, I am confused by your shift in position. First, dimension was not something "foreign to" God, implying that such was intrinsic to God's nature. Now you say that dimension is an actualized concept conceived in the mind of God, implying that dimension, when actualized, is separate and distinct from God. More contradictions?...
If you listen to the mystics, they will tell you that there are concepts beyond our imagination, beyond our ability to describe, and far removed from any antecedent experience. And if that applies to us as finite human beings, why should we presume to place arbitrary constraints on the operations of an eternal and infinite mind?Ionian_Tradition wrote:...Experiential context only emerges from the actual Chris. You can't experience what isn't there. The "actual" logically precedes the "conceptual". Deny this if you wish, but know that you do so at the expense of rational discourse...
The specifics of any claimed "divine revelation" are not a matter that need concern bare philosophical theism. But at any rate you are obfuscating here. If the detective logically deduces that the criminal held the gun from a window three stories above the victim, you would apparently pooh-pooh such notions unless the detective could also ascertain the contents of the shooter's stomach and the brand of aftershave he had used earlier that morning...Ionian_Tradition wrote:And it only took 362 posts for you to admit the utter frivolity of this discussion. Or would you have us believe that the God of theism revealed to you something of himself/herself/itself that he/she/it somehow failed to mention to the rest of us?...EduChris wrote:Theists do not presume that we can discuss the mind of God intelligibly--at least not unless such Mind were to reveal something of itself to us.Ionian_Tradition wrote:...I grant that infinite minds may very well transcend such limitations, but we could not discuss such minds intelligibly...
Can sweet cherries be actualized before they are conceived? Admit it--you have no idea, and you have no evidence. All you have are bare assertions masquerading as argument.Ionian_Tradition wrote:...Would also affirm that cherries are also sweet before they 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 #376
Okay, well now that you've cleared that up for everyone...Dantalion wrote:...the chicken DOES in fact come before the egg...
Good. Please present such evidence, since you apparently believe it's in such abundant supply. That is, after all, the whole point of this thread.Dantalion wrote:...ALL evidence we DO have about EVERYTHING supports impersonal causation...
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 #377
You have arbitrarily eliminated the possibility that both causal factors may be involved. Since you do not know that both cannot have acted together in concert (as I described in the agency involved in creating a self-actualizing universe, coupled with the concomitant necessity for allowing at least a possibility of evil).Justin108 wrote:...We came to the conclusion that the origin must be agency or non-agency using logic. Logic tells us the bare minimum requirement for all possibility is one or the other. I stress bare minimum requirement to point out that the minimum would be one or the other. To add them together is arbitrary speculation because then one begins to speculate the means by which all possibility arose. By adding these together, you are essentially saying the Agent used allready-existing Necessity to create all possibility. I contest that the bare minimum is EITHER one OR the other. By seperating them, I am not arbitrarily eliminating anything. They are both still options so neither is eliminated...
Your methodology here does not conform to standard epistemic practice. For example, if you are a detective and you have two suspects with motive and means to commit the crime, you cannot arbitrarily rule out the possibility that both of them may have collaborated. In other words, finding one guilty party does not thereby exonerate the other suspect.
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 #378
Yes, it appears EduChris is arguing for Solipsism, but on the part of God. Or a silly form of Idealism, which has been roundly rejected.Ionian_Tradition wrote:This has been explained numerous times over the course of this discussion. Uncontextualized thoughts cannot logically exist as coherent/intelligible thought (the concept of "pain" is meaningless without reference to sensation"). Context is only derived through experience (sensation can only be known through experience). Thus coherent concepts cannot emerge in the absence of some experiential framework from which to form. The same applies to all concepts of properties intrinsic to our universe.EduChris wrote:This is the heart of the problem with your argument. Our finite minds have a beginning, and therefore we need to learn; but why should you or anyone else suppose the same should be true of a mind which has no beginning and which intrinsically conceives or creates all possibilities?Ionian_Tradition wrote:...a mind cannot choose what does not first exist...objects of choice will always precede choice itself...some non-choosing entity will always exist ontologically prior to thoughtful choice...If there is no experiential context available from which to form a particular concept (e.g. spacial location), it cannot be conceived.
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees
Post #379
Please tell me what you think is wrong about my example:Justin108 wrote:...Logically, something cannot be both be personal AND impersonal...
1) Agency chooses to create a self-actualizing universe with creaturely freedom and responsibility.
2) Necessity then dictates that such a universe cannot be had unless there is some real possibility for evil and suffering
3) Agency would not ordinarily choose the evil and suffering, but decides that the long-term benefits of a self-actualizing universe outweigh the risk. And so, the self-actualizing universe is created, along with the possibility for evil and suffering.
In what way is that not an example of the two causal mechanisms operating together to produce a particular sort of universe?
If you simply assume that an agent is not needed, then of course you will conclude that an agent is not needed. You are simply assuming the consequent.Justin108 wrote:...we do not see why an Agent is needed. And if it is not needed, it can be justifiably rejected...
What we need to do is determine what all the options are. We can't arbitrarily rule out any option. And then we determine which option has the best justification. When we do this, theism is the preferred option--and this is true even if you find some way to rule out the both-and option.
The non-theistic assumption carries the consequent that our universe (and countless others) are all logically necessary, since they cannot not be. The theistic assumption carries the epistemically preferred consequent that our universe is contingent (i.e., not logically necessary).
Contingency assumes less than necessity. Theism therefore assumes less than non-theism--even if you rule out (arbitrarily or otherwise) the combination of both causal factors.
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 #380
This is the presupposition you start with and keep asserting but we keep pressing you to make your case.EduChris wrote: And then we determine which option has the best justification. When we do this, theism is the preferred option--and this is true even if you find some way to rule out the both-and option.
Maybe start by making your case rather than asserting the conclusion you want us to end with?
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees
