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 #461
I know of no reasonable scientist or philosopher who rejects the notion that context is that which lends a term its coherency. Nor am I aware of any rational individual, from either field of study, which fails to recognize that, by virtue of the aforementioned, context must necessarily precede concept.EduChris wrote:Again, your conclusion is the same as your "foundational axiom." There is no difference between the two; they are one and the same, without remainder.Ionian_Tradition wrote:...My argument is built upon one foundational axiom...The conclusions drawn from this...
Axioms cannot be argued, since if they could be argued they wouldn't be axioms. Axioms are either accepted or not. Therefore, to be useful in any argument, axioms should be acceptable to most reasonable people. If you ignore this requirement, if your argument starts with a highly controversial axiom (which turns out to be the same as your conclusion) why should you be surprised when people disagree with you?
Question for you: Are there not numerous philosophers and scientists, far more studied than you, who reject your axiom-conclusion?
