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 #422
It could be equally argued that necessity cannot operate independently of agency. Thus there is only A+N, which entails theism.Justin108 wrote:...My claim is it would be logically impossible for the Agent to exist completely independent of Necessity...
It is equally plausible that God chooses to enact and operate according to consistent principles in order to facilitate certain types of personal relationships.Justin108 wrote:...An Agent would have to follow the laws of Logic as they are inescapable....even God has to conform to the laws of Logic. The Agent therefore is limited by some degree of Necessity no matter what...
Necessity does not make a choice; rather, necessity restricts the options available to the agent. Without agency, nothing happens.Justin108 wrote:...God's existence is itself a Necessity. God exists because it is necessary for him to exist...Without this necessity, God would not exist...
Again, there is only A+N, which entails theism.
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 #423
If you call an unfertilized chicken egg still a chicken egg, embryos have got nothing to do with what makes us call a chicken egg a chicken egg.
Show me the flaw of my argumentation.
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 267 times
Post #424
Ok, like how chicken gametes are eggs then. Which makes more sense: chicken embyo developing from non-chicken gametes, or chicken gametes coming from non-chicken? I hold that the latter makes more sense.Dantalion wrote:If you call an unfertilized chicken egg still a chicken egg, embryos have got nothing to do with what makes us call a chicken egg a chicken egg.
Show me the flaw of my argumentation.
Post #425
I see. The agent is a logical necessity and nothing ever comes about due to non-agency, universes or anything else for that matter since everything requires agency. So my DNA was personally designed and implemented by the agent because "I might not have been".EduChris wrote:Since you agree that "the universe might not have been," you are admitting that the universe is contingent--it is not logically necessary. You have thus eliminated non-agency as an explanation for the universe. This means that if there is an explanation for our universe, that explanation can only be some sort of agency.Justin108 wrote:...As for "our universe might not have been"... I agree. What's your point?...
Post #426
God's existence is itself a necessity so God has no option but to exist. So God's existence is not due to any agency but without agency you say that nothing happens so how could God happen?EduChris wrote:Necessity does not make a choice; rather, necessity restricts the options available to the agent. Without agency, nothing happens.Justin108 wrote:...God's existence is itself a Necessity. God exists because it is necessary for him to exist...Without this necessity, God would not exist...
Again, there is only A+N, which entails theism.
Post #427
In that case...EduChris wrote:
Justin108 wrote:
...You forget the question that's being asked and that is whether the victim was poisoned...The options are still only two: he was poisoned or he was not poisoned...The only relevant matter is whether he was poisoned or not...
The question was, "Is there any human agency involved in the death, or was is strictly due to natural causes?"
.
1. He was deliberately poisoned (agency)
2. He non-intentionally ingested a naturally occurring toxin (non-agency)
3. He non-intentionally ingested a man-made poison (both agency and non-agency)
1. and 3. has the same answer, which is "yes". The only difference again is in the details.
I am using "Creator" synonymously with "Agent".EduChris wrote: We are not talking about a "Creator"; rather, we are talking about the only two known causal mechanisms: agency and non-agency. One or the other (or both) of these causal factors undergird our universe.
Theism does however entail the prima-facie obstacle of explaining why we should think our universe cannot be without an Agent, given that there is no apparent contradiction entailed by the statement, "Our universe need not have been caused by an Agent"...
I have not eliminated non-agency. You would have to elaborate why it is impossible for a contingent universe to be non-agental.EduChris wrote:Since you agree that "the universe might not have been," you are admitting that the universe is contingent--it is not logically necessary. You have thus eliminated non-agency as an explanation for the universe. This means that if there is an explanation for our universe, that explanation can only be some sort of agency.
Post #428
You would have to demonstrate that argument. I already demonstrated that Agency needs a degree of Necessity. You have not presented a logical argument for why Necessity requires Agency.EduChris wrote: Justin108 wrote:
...My claim is it would be logically impossible for the Agent to exist completely independent of Necessity...
It could be equally argued that necessity cannot operate independently of agency. Thus there is only A+N, which entails theism.
.
You are making unsupported claims. I already demonstrated that Logic is inescapable via my unbreakable object scenario. Your rebuttal is disappointing. All you're doing is saying "well you could be wrong" without demonstrating anything.EduChris wrote:Justin108 wrote:
...An Agent would have to follow the laws of Logic as they are inescapable....even God has to conform to the laws of Logic. The Agent therefore is limited by some degree of Necessity no matter what...
It is equally plausible that God chooses to enact and operate according to consistent principles in order to facilitate certain types of personal relationships.
There are two worldviews here: Atheism and Theism.EduChris wrote:Justin108 wrote:
...God's existence is itself a Necessity. God exists because it is necessary for him to exist...Without this necessity, God would not exist...
Necessity does not make a choice; rather, necessity restricts the options available to the agent. Without agency, nothing happens.
Atheism's worldview says there need not be a god. Only Necessity is involved.
Theism's worldview says there needs to be a god/agent (whatever you want to call it). In the Theistic worldview, the agent MUST exist. It is a Necessity for the Agent to exist, otherwise nothing can exist. Therefore, Agency relies on this Necessity to exist. Again bringing Logic into this: in a Theistic world, God cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Therefore, in the Theistic world, God MUST exist out of Necessity.
Last edited by Justin108 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post #429
Isn't that basically the same question? for there to be 'chicken gametes' you must first have 'chicken'.Bust Nak wrote:Ok, like how chicken gametes are eggs then. Which makes more sense: chicken embyo developing from non-chicken gametes, or chicken gametes coming from non-chicken? I hold that the latter makes more sense.Dantalion wrote:If you call an unfertilized chicken egg still a chicken egg, embryos have got nothing to do with what makes us call a chicken egg a chicken egg.
Show me the flaw of my argumentation.
I really don't get that complicating this very simple matter is helpful to anyone.
chicken zygote comes from chicken gametes comes from chicken.
So chicken first.
A human zygote for instance has all the chromosomes an adult has, but gametes only have half. Meaning the 'stage' where 'stuff can be influenced to be different' is conception right ? Meaning why wouldn't it be likely that chicken zygote is the result of non chicken gamates ?
In fact, we already have artificially created mutations such as egg or feather colour by messing with male gamates.
All these unnecessary steps into macro-evolution still lead us to conclude the chicken came before the chicken egg, and the theoretical 'first chicken' came out of 'proto-chicken' egg.
I'll introduce yet another argument if you're so keen not accepting the argument on a mere logical basis.
Basically, there's a protein only found in chicken's ovaries that is necessary for the formation of the chicken egg. This means, the chicken egg can only exist if it had been created in a chicken.
I don't know how much easier I can make this.
Please provide me your argumentation, I love to be shown wrong so that I can adjust my views.
Do we have some sort of misunderstanding of the word 'egg', where I mean the object egg and you mean embryo/zygote ?
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 267 times
Post #430
But the question is where is first chicken comes from.Dantalion wrote: Isn't that basically the same question? for there to be 'chicken gametes' you must first have 'chicken'.
chicken zygote comes from chicken gametes comes from chicken.
So chicken first.
You are saying this chicken comes from chicken zygote coming from non-chicken gametes coming from non-chickens. And I think that makes less than a chicken coming from chicken zygote coming from chicken gametes coming from non-chickens.
Well, before or at conception.A human zygote for instance has all the chromosomes an adult has, but gametes only have half. Meaning the 'stage' where 'stuff can be influenced to be different' is conception right?
That depends if you see mutated non chicken gamates are still non chicken gamates or chicken gamates.Meaning why wouldn't it be likely that chicken zygote is the result of non chicken gamates ?
Right, and that implies the jump can happen before conception.In fact, we already have artificially created mutations such as egg or feather colour by messing with male gamates.
I am pretty sure the protein you have in mind exist well before proto-chicken.Basically, there's a protein only found in chicken's ovaries that is necessary for the formation of the chicken egg. This means, the chicken egg can only exist if it had been created in a chicken.
Egg means object egg. i.e. the thing that get laid.Do we have some sort of misunderstanding of the word 'egg', where I mean the object egg and you mean embryo/zygote ?
