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
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #211The source and fount of all possibility is either less-than-personal, or not-less-than-personal.Bust Nak wrote:...The source and fount of all possibility is either personal or not personal. It's a true dichotomy...
Not-less-than-personal needn't imply, "no element of necessity at all"; instead, it means simply that, whatever else there may be, there is at least some genuine element of personal agency.
As a theist, I can assure you that I find no incompatibility between personal agency and necessity. For example, in exercising personal agency regarding the manner in which God freely creates, it is necessary that God be true to God's own self. This means that there might be some real constraints in the types of universes which God chooses to create.
Now I invite you to move back on topic, per this post.
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
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 267 times
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #212If there is any element of necessity, then the personal part is restrained by something, and hence not the source and fount of all possibility. That part that is doing the restraining is, and we are back to the dichotomy of personal or impersonal.EduChris wrote:The source and fount of all possibility is either less-than-personal, or not-less-than-personal.Bust Nak wrote:...The source and fount of all possibility is either personal or not personal. It's a true dichotomy...
Not-less-than-personal need not imply, "no element of necessity at all"; instead, it means simply that, whatever else there may be, there is at least some genuine element of personal agency.
Then you are saying God isn't the source and fount of all possibility, there are things that aren't necessarily true which source isn't God.As a theist, I can assure you that I find no incompatibility between personal agency and necessity. For example, in exercising personal agency regarding the manner in which God freely creates, it is necessary that God be true to God's own self. This means that there might be some real constraints in the types of universes which God chooses to create.
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #213What is possible is a function of what can be actualized. For example, in casual discussion we might assume that it is "possible" that "nothing at all exist," but this ostensible "possibility" is in fact not possible at all: given that something exists necessarily, it is impossible that "nothing at all exist." In other words, not all things which seem conceivable can be actualized--and this is the case whether the source and fount of all possibility is less-than-personal, or not.Bust Nak wrote:...If there is any element of necessity, then the personal part is restrained by something, and hence not the source and fount of all possibility. That part that is doing the restraining is, and we are back to the dichotomy of personal or impersonal...
Again, that something seems conceivable is no guarantee that it can be actualized. There are some things which are (in some sense) conceivable but which have a zero-percent chance of being actualized--and this is the case whether the source and fount of all possibility is less-than-personal, or not.Bust Nak wrote:...Then you are saying God isn't the source and fount of all possibility, there are things that aren't necessarily true which source isn't God.
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
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 267 times
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #214Sure what is concievible may not be possible, but on what grounds do you declare that something exists necessarily? There are no internal contradiction within the statement nothing at all exists. Why for example cannot God say one thing and do another?EduChris wrote:What is possible is a function of what can be actualized. For example, in casual discussion we might assume that it is "possible" that "nothing at all exist," but this ostensible "possibility" is in fact not possible at all: given that something exists necessarily, it is impossible that "nothing at all exist." In other words, not all things which seem conceivable can be actualized--and this is the case whether the source and fount of all possibility is less-than-personal, or not....Bust Nak wrote:...If there is any element of necessity, then the personal part is restrained by something, and hence not the source and fount of all possibility. That part that is doing the restraining is, and we are back to the dichotomy of personal or impersonal...
And how exactly does this counter my claim that the necessity that is doing the restraining is the source and fount of all possibility?
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #215The statement, "nothing at all exists" is immediately and instantly contradicted by the fact that we do exist. Since we cannot negate the statement, "something exists," without facing instant and obvious contradiction, it follows that something exists necessarily.Bust Nak wrote:...Sure what is concievible may not be possible, but on what grounds do you declare that something exists necessarily? There are no internal contradiction within the statement nothing at all exists...
How is this relevant to this discussion? I don't see why I would need to take a position either way on this--at least not on this thread. But if I wanted to hazard a guess, it might be that God could say one thing, and then not be constrained by necessity to act on those words. On the other hand, it might be possible that the very fact that God freely chooses to say one thing automatically entails the necessity of acting on those words. I don't know how this contributes to this discussion either way.Bust Nak wrote:...Why for example cannot God say one thing and do another?...
Necessity might entail a zero-percent chance of one thing occurring, but necessity need not entail that "real possibility A" is always actualized rather than "real possibility B," or that "real possibility A" is ever in fact actualized. Necessity and agency work together, such that whatever can be actualized is a function of both causal elements.Bust Nak wrote:...And how exactly does this counter my claim that the necessity that is doing the restraining is the source and fount of all possibility?
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
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 267 times
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #216If you want to argue that then you are saying there are no such things contingencies. Every non-factual statement is immediate and instantly contradicted the fact. No false statement can be negated without facing instant and obvious contradiction, would according to you would means what is, is, necessarily.EduChris wrote:The statement, "nothing at all exists" is immediately and instantly contradicted by the fact that we do exist. Since we cannot negate the statement, "something exists," without facing instant and obvious contradiction, it follows that something exists necessarily.Bust Nak wrote:...Sure what is concievible may not be possible, but on what grounds do you declare that something exists necessarily? There are no internal contradiction within the statement nothing at all exists...
I brought it up to show that what I am concieving can be acturalized.How is this relevant to this discussion? I don't see why I would need to take a position either way on this--at least not on this thread. But if I wanted to hazard a guess, it might be that God could say one thing, and then not be constrained by necessity to act on those words. On the other hand, it might be possible that the very fact that God freely chooses to say one thing automatically entails the necessity of acting on those words. I don't know how this contributes to this discussion either way.
This doesn't gel with what you said above. Everything that isn't actualized is not an possibility if you insist that the fact that something exists would renders something exists necessarily.Necessity might entail a zero-percent chance of one thing occurring, but necessity need not entail that "real possibility A" is always actualized rather than "real possibility B," or that "real possibility A" is ever in fact actualized. Necessity and agency work together, such that whatever can be actualized is a function of both causal elements.
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #217I don't see your logic here at all. For example, the statement, "It might be the case that nothing exists," runs afoul of the obvious fact of our existence. Therefore, it cannot possibly be the case that "nothing exists." On the other hand, if we say, "It might be the case that no leprechauns exist," that statement is not contradicted by logic or by any known body of facts. Leprechauns might exist in some possible universe, but it is not immediately and obviously necessary (logically or empirically) that any should actually exist in any universe. Therefore, we are justified in assuming that leprechauns are contingent.Bust Nak wrote:...If you want to argue that then you are saying there are no such things contingencies. Every non-factual statement is immediate and instantly contradicted the fact. No false statement can be negated without facing instant and obvious contradiction, would according to you would means what is, is, necessarily...
You're being too cryptic for me. I can't see any point to your statement.Bust Nak wrote:...I brought it up to show that what I am concieving can be acturalized...
Again I am not following your logic. The "something" which "exists necessarily" is "that which gives rise to any and all actualities." There cannot not exist this "something which gives rise to any and all actualities" if in fact anything at all (such as our universe) exists.Bust Nak wrote:...This doesn't gel with what you said above. Everything that isn't actualized is not an possibility if you insist that the fact that something exists would renders something exists necessarily.
Our universe is contingent, since it need not have been actualized. In such case, we would obviously not be aware that the "necessary something" existed. But since we are here, and since we are contingent--i.e., our universe need not have come to be, or it might have been other than it is--we can logically deduce that the prior probability of our universe was never non-zero.
In other words, "Our universe need not have been actualized" entails no logical or empirical contradiction; therefore, our universe is contingent. By contrast, "There was no prior possibility that our universe could be actualized" runs afoul of the obvious fact that our universe exists; therefore, the "prior possibility" of of our universe is logically necessary (given the fact of our contingent existence).
For any contingent possibility which can be actualized, "God" is the logically necessary prior possibility for that contingency. If "God" is not-less-than-personal, then theism is the case. If "God" is less-than-personal, then non-theism is the case. But regarding personal agency, non-theism relies on an assumption of "impossible," which pertains to all possible worlds. The theist's assumption of "possible," is more privitive since it need pertain to only one possible world. Therefore, since standard and normal epistemological rules require that we take the most privitive option, it follows that theism is epistemically justified, whereas non-theism is not.
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 #218
This is becoming tiresome. My previous posts are #180, #194, #199.EduChris wrote:I have not rejected my original definition of non-theism. I am simply trying to collect a list of all the reasons why "theism need not be the case."ytrewq wrote:...you have now had to reject your original definition of 'non-theism' that you gave in your first posting.
We start by acknowledging that all sides in the debate understand that we lack certainty, we don't know that theism is the case (or that it isn't the case). No one suggests that we can put God under a microscope for observation, or cross-examine God in a court of law. If absolute, objective, empirical certainty were the criteria, then there would be no theists (and no atheists) at all. But unfortunately there is little in life that allows for absolute, objective, empirical certainty; we live our daily lives always in the shadow of ignorance and uncertainty and doubt. And yet, somehow, we manage to get out of bed each morning, even though we can't be sure that the ground will continue to support us as it has in the past.
Therefore, let's set aside, for the moment, the non-theist's most cherished objection that "we can't be certain that theism is the case." We don't set this objection aside permanently; when we're all done listing all of the other arguments for non-theism, the "we can't be certain" argument can re-enter the conversation. But by leaving it aside for the moment, we can focus on all of the other reasons why "theism need not be the case." And if we're lucky, in the end we will have arrived at a more enlightened state of uncertainty.
Specifically, I am trying to get a list of all the positive arguments for non-theism. So far, we have seen LiamOS offer speculation. We have seen Haven offer the "Argument from Evil." And we have seen DivineInsight offer the "Argument from Divine Hiddenness." An argument from pure speculation seems to be a back-handed way of sneaking the "we can't be certain" objection back into the conversation, so LiamOS's argument fails. The Argument from Evil and the Argument from Divine Hiddenness both rely on unsupportable assumptions, and so these arguments also fail at the logical level (though not always at the emotional level).
What other arguments, besides than ones mentioned above, can we present on behalf of non-theism? Please try to ensure that your argument entails: 1) no logical contradiction; 2) no contravening body of evidence; and 3) no suspension or violation of standard and normal rules of epistemology.
Apparently you maintain your definition of non-theism as below, as shown in your original posting:
You are asking for a case that support non-theism, that is, show why why theism need not be the case.Non-theism: the philosophical viewpoint that theism need not be the case.
I have answered that question several times. Quoting from my previous post:
It seems like an unusually open-and-shut case to me. There is no evidence available that proves that God exists, from which it follows that we cannot be certain that God exists, which is equivalent to saying that theism need not be the case.Why are you setting out to to show something that is already acknowledged to be true, namely, that 'theism need not be the case', which is equivalent to saying 'we cannot be certain that God exists', isn't it?. We all know that already, as I have explained.
Done and dusted.
Obviously, it is irrelevant whether there might or might not be other reasons to show that 'theism need not be the case'. One good reason is all you need. I have shown that theism need not be the case with watertight precision, so it would be an irrelevant and illogical waste of time looking for other reasons. Unless and until you can provide evidence to show you are certain that God exists, which is most unlikely, the discussion is over.
PS to all reading this thread. Is there any logical error in what I have said above?
Post #219
The OP and subsequent posts by me make clear that we are not interested, here on this thread, on debating or considering the "we can't be certain" argument. Theists and non-theists alike agree on this point.ytrewq wrote:...it is irrelevant whether there might or might not be other reasons to show that 'theism need not be the case'. One good reason is all you need...
It might be enough for another thread, but this thread is specifically concerned with any and all additional reasons that theism need not be the case (without reference to the "we can't be certain" argument).ytrewq wrote:...I have shown that theism need not be the case with watertight precision, and that is enough...
The question is not, and never has been the "existence" of "God." As my previous post to Bust Nak demonstrates, the issue is whether the logically necessary source and fount of all possibility is less-than-personal, or not. My argument above shows quite clearly that theism is the only epsitemically justified option. But that really is for another thread.ytrewq wrote:...Unless and until you can provide evidence to show you are certain that God exists, which is most unlikely, the discussion is over.
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 #220
It's all over mate.EduChris wrote:It might be enough for another thread, but this thread is specifically concerned with any and all additional reasons that theism need not be the case (without reference to the "we can't be certain" argument).ytrewq wrote:...I have shown that theism need not be the case with watertight precision, and that is enough...
I answered your question in a very precise and watertight manner and that is the end of the matter. Whether the question was asked on this thread or any other is irrelevant.
If you wish to seek additional anwers to a question that is already answered beyond all reasonable doubt, then that it up to you, but you should not expect others to join you in such a time wasting exercise.
Think about it. Just say I proved to you beyond all reasonable doubt that there were three apples in a shoebox, by removing the lid and showing you. Would it not be a complete waste of time asking for 'additional evidence' for something that had already been proven beyond all doubt? Do you 'get it'?
It's all over.
