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 #431
We agree on everything but the end result it seems ?Bust Nak wrote: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 ?
I mean, what matters is, that if the jump does not happen AFTER conception, the chicken will always come first, no ?
However this is what I don't understand: how can chicken gamates come from non-chickens? You say this makes more sense than chicken zygote coming from non-chicken gamates (even though we can temper with gamates which influences the zygote. We can't temper with a species so that it has other-species gametes can we ??) Can you clarify for me how it would make more sense please?
I would say the first chicken comes from proto-chicken's egg, laid by proto- chicken, with the jump happening in the gamates at or before conception. Basically, a mutation at or before conception that would lead us to differentiate the proto-chicken's offspring from with a new name, chicken, and it's that 'first' chicken that lays the first 'chicken egg'.
Do you agree with me that we call an egg a 'chicken egg' based on the animal that laid the egg, not based on what's inside of the egg?
If you agree, then the chicken comes first.
If you don't agree, then you would call an unfertilized chicken egg something else than a chicken egg (which we don't), or you would call the egg laid by a chicken that hatches a crocodile not a chicken egg, but a crocodile egg (which we don't).
What am I missing here ?
Post #432
We seem to agree that any element of agency combined with any element of non-agency amounts to theism. We also agree that non-theism cannot survive if any element of agency is involved.Justin108 wrote:...1. and 3. has the same answer, which is "yes". The only difference again is in the details...
In other words, we agree that A-only and A+N each entail theism rather than non-theism. We also agree that non-theism entails N-only.
You have also supported each of the following two mutually contradictory arguments:
i) The only causal factors are A-only and N-only; therefore, A+N does not exist or is impossible.
ii) A-only does not exist or is impossible; therefore, the only viable choices are A+N and N-only.
That you have variously argued both positions provides prima-facie evidence that A-only and A+N are indeed both possible options.
I think you have conflated the following three statements:
1) A-only and A+N = theism
2a) A-only and A+N = A-only
2b) A-only and A+N = A+N
Option #1 is true and (AFAIK) mutually agreed; options 2a and 2b are disputed at best, and wrong at worst.
The question is, "Can necessity turn itself on and off?" If it can, then it looks more likely agency (or perhaps arbitrariness) than necessity. If it cannot, then the specificity of our universe can only be plausibly explained by resort to the following counterintuitives:Justin108 wrote:...You would have to elaborate why it is impossible for a contingent universe to be non-agental...
1) Our universe is necessary; it cannot not be
2) An infinity of other universes are also necessary, even though we can never have independent confirmation of their existence
In other words, there are three explanations for our universe:
1) Agency (an explanation)
2) Necessity (an explanation involving counterintuitives)
3) Arbitrariness (a fundamental and radical lack of explanation)
The third option is not an explanation so much as a lack of explanation--and it's not just that we currently don't have an explanation, but rather that there is not explanation to be had, now or ever. As rational beings, however, we are compelled to seek rational explanations wherever such can be found; accordingly, we reject option #3.
The second option asks us to believe that our universe (and an infinitude of other unobservable universes) are necessary. This position assumes more than agency, since we have no independent reason to suppose that our universe (and an infinitude of other universes) are all necessary. For all appearances, our universe is the only universe, and our universe appears to be contingent.
Therefore, the first option, Agency, is preferred on epistemological grounds. It does not entail that we assume "logical necessity" of any universe, and it only requires that agency (perhaps conjoined in some way with necessity) be a causal factor. Since we are all intimately cognizant of agency in our daily lives, theism assumes the least and therefore best explains our universe.
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 #433
Actually my new stance has been achieved through a new vantage point. The old stance came by before I considered the application of the laws of Logic. My stance has always been that A vs A+N is merely a difference in detail of how the Agent managed to cause the universe. With my newly attained insight of Logic, I can eliminate A-only leaving A+N vs. N-only.EduChris wrote:
We seem to agree that any element of agency combined with any element of non-agency amounts to theism. We also agree that non-theism cannot survive if any element of agency is involved.
In other words, we agree that A-only and A+N each entail theism rather than non-theism. We also agree that non-theism entails N-only.
You have also supported each of the following two mutually contradictory arguments:
i) The only causal factors are A-only and N-only; therefore, A+N does not exist or is impossible.
ii) A-only does not exist or is impossible; therefore, the only viable choices are A+N and N-only.
That you have variously argued both positions provides prima-facie evidence that A-only and A+N are indeed both possible options.
.
Post #434
Given that necessity cannot turn itself on and off and still be viewed as necessity, it follows that if there were only necessity, then either 1) nothing would exist or 2) everything would exist necessarily. Since #1 is obviously false, and since #2 involves the greatest assumption possible (logical necessity for our universe, which appears contingent, and logical necessity for an infinity of unobservable universes) it appears that N-only does not hold up well as an explanation for our universe. Even you have admitted that our universe seems to be contingent (i.e., it need not have been).Justin108 wrote:...You have not presented a logical argument for why Necessity requires Agency...
Logic is only inescapable if there is no option for the agency to prefer arbitrariness or irrationality. If the option is there, but the agent finds more value in logic (rather than illogic) then there is no reason to suppose that logic is necessary. Are you trying to insist that an agent cannot be illogical and arbitrary?Justin108 wrote:...I already demonstrated that Logic is inescapable via my unbreakable object scenario...
There are indeed two worldviews, and we cannot escape choosing one or the other in our practical daily lives. That we have only two worldviews, however, does not entail that the odds are 50/50 either way. I have argued that A-only and A+N combine for greater probability than N-only. You disagree, but you have put forward two mutually exclusive arguments which (I think) cancel each other out. I have also argued that if there is an explanation (and rational agents are compelled to seek explanations wherever such can be found) then non-theism entails the larger assumption of logical necessity--not only for our apparently contingent universe, but also for an infinity of unobserved universes.Justin108 wrote:...There are two worldviews here: Atheism and Theism...
Theism is therefore the preferred rational option.
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 #435
Firstly, I don't think you have demonstrated that logic eliminates A-only. Secondly, N-only can be eliminated just as easily (or even more easily) than A-only. Eliminating A-only and N-only leaves us with A+N, which entails theism.Justin108 wrote:...With my newly attained insight of Logic, I can eliminate A-only leaving A+N vs. N-only.
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 #436
The question itself is incoherent. This is not a limitation of the agent, but rather a limitation of our ability to restrict ourselves to coherent questions (rather than indulging in incoherent questions as well).Justin108 wrote:...A simple question: Can God (an omnipotent being) create an object that even he cannot destroy?...
If we define "omnipotence" as the ability to do absolutely anything, then there is simply no way to find any meaning in the question, "Can an agent who can do anything do something which is impossible?"
If the agent really can do anything, then there is no such thing as an "impossible thing" which the agent cannot do. There is nothing which the word "impossible" can refer to, and that is why the question is incoherent.
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 #437
It doesn't have to "turn itself on and off". There need not be a decision made by non-agency. If a coin is flipped, who decides what it lands on? No one. It just lands on whatever it lands on. So if the universe "landed" on existence, it doesn't mean the universe "chose" to exist, not does it mean it couldn't have not existed.EduChris wrote:
The question is, "Can necessity turn itself on and off?" If it can, then it looks more likely agency (or perhaps arbitrariness) than necessity. If it cannot, then the specificity of our universe can only be plausibly explained by resort to the following counterintuitives:
1) Our universe is necessary; it cannot not be
2) An infinity of other universes are also necessary, even though we can never have independent confirmation of their existence
.
1. You defined "necessity" merely as "non-agency" earlier in your post. Going solely by your definiton of Necessity as "non-agency", it would not be contradictory to say non-agency could be contingent.
2. Nor can we have independent confirmation of the existence of God but that's not stopping you from believing his existence. One would take one less assumption regarding multiple universes by limiting oneself to "considering the possibility" instead of "believing it to be true". Theists usually do the latter. But I suppose that's besides the point.
I disagree. Why can't the origin of the universe be from arbitrariness? This is an unjustified rejection if I ever saw one. You just seam to dislike it as an explanation. You cannot give me an actual reason why it is impossible. Things happen by chance all the time. Who's to say the same thing isn't true for the universe?EduChris wrote:
In other words, there are three explanations for our universe:
1) Agency (an explanation)
2) Necessity (an explanation involving counterintuitives)
3) Arbitrariness (a fundamental and radical lack of explanation)
The third option is not an explanation so much as a lack of explanation--and it's not just that we currently don't have an explanation, but rather that there is not explanation to be had, now or ever. As rational beings, however, we are compelled to seek rational explanations wherever such can be found; accordingly, we reject option #3.
Oh and by the way... by adding arbitrariness as a possible explanation, you shifted the odds in atheism's favor since now necessity and arbitrariness are two possibilities void of an agent while agency is one possibility.
But don't worry... I would not take that position. I still stand by two options: Either there is an agent, or there isn't. 50/50
Firstly, and I repeat myself, Theism makes the assumption that a universe cannot exist in the absense of an Agent. Theism makes an assumption Atheism does not make.EduChris wrote:The second option asks us to believe that our universe (and an infinitude of other unobservable universes) are necessary. This position assumes more than agency, since we have no independent reason to suppose that our universe (and an infinitude of other universes) are all necessary.
Secondly, you're contradicting yourself.
since we have no independent reason to suppose that our universe (and an infinitude of other universes) are all necessary
This is in direct opposition to your reasons for rejecting the third possibility. You labelled this "arbitrary" yet now you contest that there is no reason to believe the universe is necessary.
It entails the assumption of the "logical necessity" of an Agent.EduChris wrote:Therefore, the first option, Agency, is preferred on epistemological grounds. It does not entail that we assume "logical necessity" of any universe, and it only requires that agency (perhaps conjoined in some way with necessity) be a causal factor. Since we are all intimately cognizant of agency in our daily lives, theism assumes the least and therefore best explains our universe.
And our daily lives have nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
Post #438
Firstly, this is a Red Herring. This in no way argues in favor of Necessity NEEDING Agency. That was the requested argument. Yet now you're arguing that Agency makes less assumptions. Those are two different matters. So again I ask, what argument can you provide to support that Necessity NEEDS Agency.EduChris wrote:
Justin108 wrote:
...You have not presented a logical argument for why Necessity requires Agency...
Given that necessity cannot turn itself on and off and still be viewed as necessity, it follows that if there were only necessity, then either 1) nothing would exist or 2) everything would exist necessarily. Since #1 is obviously false, and since #2 involves the greatest assumption possible (logical necessity for our universe, which appears contingent, and logical necessity for an infinity of unobservable universes) it appears that N-only does not hold up well as an explanation for our universe. Even you have admitted that our universe seems to be contingent (i.e., it need not have been).
.
Secondly, and I say this for the umpteenth time, Theists make the assumption that there needs to be an Agent.
And thirdly, the possibility that the universe may not have existed has not been successfully rejected.
The agent can probably think illogically but it cannot act against what logic would allow.EduChris wrote:Logic is only inescapable if there is no option for the agency to prefer arbitrariness or irrationality. If the option is there, but the agent finds more value in logic (rather than illogic) then there is no reason to suppose that logic is necessary. Are you trying to insist that an agent cannot be illogical and arbitrary?
I remind you of my earlier example of an omnipotent God creating an object that even he cannot destroy. No matter how you look at it, this scenario would make absolute omnipotence a logical impossibility. Therefore the Agent would be limited by Logic to not be absolutely omnipotent in this manner.
As I have mentioned before, I stood by my old position before I considered my Logic argument. Now that I realize the necessary impact Logic would have, I take the position of A-only being an impossibility. If you can demonstrate how the Agent would be able to act in a manner that goes against logical possibility then you have no choice but to agree that the Agent is incapable of operating free of Necessity.EduChris wrote:There are indeed two worldviews, and we cannot escape choosing one or the other in our practical daily lives. That we have only two worldviews, however, does not entail that the odds are 50/50 either way. I have argued that A-only and A+N combine for greater probability than N-only. You disagree, but you have put forward two mutually exclusive arguments which (I think) cancel each other out
Post #439
There is nothing wrong with my question. It merely demonstrates the limits of Logic. Just as there cannot be a triangle with four sides, there isn't an entity that can be absolutely omnipotent. This entity also would not be able to make a triangle with four sides. This entity can also not be existent and non-existent at the same time. This entity is restricted by the Laws of Logic.EduChris wrote:The question itself is incoherent. This is not a limitation of the agent, but rather a limitation of our ability to restrict ourselves to coherent questions (rather than indulging in incoherent questions as well).Justin108 wrote:...A simple question: Can God (an omnipotent being) create an object that even he cannot destroy?...
If we define "omnipotence" as the ability to do absolutely anything, then there is simply no way to find any meaning in the question, "Can an agent who can do anything do something which is impossible?"
If the agent really can do anything, then there is no such thing as an "impossible thing" which the agent cannot do. There is nothing which the word "impossible" can refer to, and that is why the question is incoherent.
"Can an agent who can do anything do something which is impossible?"
My point exactly. Some things are impossible even for the Agent. No matter what. Therefore, the Agent has limitations. The Agent is goverend by these limitations and these limitations exist out of Necessity.
Post #440
The coin landed as it did because it could not have done otherwise, given all of the relevant factors. If you disagree, then you are are rejecting the basic principle of cause-and-effect.Justin108 wrote:...It doesn't have to "turn itself on and off". There need not be a decision made by non-agency. If a coin is flipped, who decides what it lands on? No one. It just lands on whatever it lands on...
According to your view, "necessity" or "non-agency" simply means, "something might happen, or it might not, and we can never know what will happen in the future based on what has happened previously." This is not a cause, but rather a lack of cause.Justin108 wrote:...You defined "necessity" merely as "non-agency" earlier in your post. Going solely by your definiton of Necessity as "non-agency", it would not be contradictory to say non-agency could be contingent...
The theist is not concerned with confirming God's "existence"; rather, the theist is concerned with determining whether Agency is better supported than any alternative as a causal factor within the "logically necessary source of all possibility" which is held in common by theists and non-theists alike.Justin108 wrote:...Nor can we have independent confirmation of the existence of God but that's not stopping you from believing his existence...
Ad hominem. As I said previously, it is not a matter of "believing" or "not believing"; rather, the issue is which set of causal factor(s) is more justified than the alternatives.Justin108 wrote:...One would take one less assumption regarding multiple universes by limiting oneself to "considering the possibility" instead of "believing it to be true"...
It isn't that I don't like it as an explanation; rather, as I said it isn't an explanation at all. It is a lack of explanation. Rational people have a duty to find rational explanations wherever such can be found. If we can't find any rational explanation, then "arbitrariness" would be the only option. But in fact we do have two rational explanations--one involving agency, which is universally known and experienced every day, and the other involving necessity-only, which isn't known to cause anything and which entails the profligate scenario of assuming (contrary to all indications) that our universe (and an infinity of unobservable universes) are logically necessary rather than contingent. Epistemology does not favor profligacy.Justin108 wrote:...Why can't the origin of the universe be from arbitrariness? This is an unjustified rejection if I ever saw one. You just seam to dislike it as an explanation...
Arbitrariness is a lack of an explanation. Rational agents have a duty to find rational explanations wherever such can be found.Justin108 wrote:...by adding arbitrariness as a possible explanation, you shifted the odds in atheism's favor since now necessity and arbitrariness are two possibilities void of an agent while agency is one possibility...
Listen now, because I have repeated this over and over. I expect you to listen carefully here because there is simply no point continuing a discussion with you unless you are making a good-faith effort to understand what I am saying.Justin108 wrote:...Firstly, and I repeat myself, Theism makes the assumption that a universe cannot exist in the absense of an Agent...
Theism does not assume that "a universe cannot exist in the absense of an Agent." That statement is false. That statement is a misrepresentation of everything that I have argued, repeatedly, on this thread and elsewhere. Theism evaluates all of the available options and concludes that agency is more justified than necessity-only.
Theism is a conclusion arrived after evaluation of all available options. You might not agree with the conclusion, but it is flat-out wrong to speak of a conclusion as though it were an assumption.
Non-theism concludes (contrary to the facts, if my arguments are correct) that necessity-alone is at least we well justified as agency. If anything, non-theism assumes that N-only is a possible explanation for our universe, when the only thing we know for sure is that A+N is a possible explanation for our universe. In other words, we have greater reason to assume that A+N provides an explanation than we do for assuming that either A-only or N-only can provide an explanation.Justin108 wrote:...Theism makes an assumption Atheism does not make...
You yourself have admitted that the universe appears contingent. You have admitted on numerous occasions that our universe need not have come to be.Justin108 wrote:...you're contradicting yourself...you contest that there is no reason to believe the universe is necessary...
The only "logical necessity" entailed by theism is the "logically necessary source of all possibility." The same is entailed by non-theism. But theism need not assume logical necessity for anything else; by contrast, non-theism entails that our universe (contrary to all appearance) is logically necessary, and that an infinitude of unobservable universes is logically necessary as well. As always, non-theism makes the greater assumption.Justin108 wrote:...It entails the assumption of the "logical necessity" of an Agent...
Granted that not everyone thinks deeply or carefully about these issues. But to the extent that anyone does think deeply and carefully about these matters, the origin of our universe is the most important question we can ever ask. This question is where we begin our search for who and what we are as human beings.Justin108 wrote:...And our daily lives have nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
Last edited by EduChris on Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:05 pm, edited 7 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
