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
-
Fuzzy Dunlop
- Guru
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am
Post #31
This is a false analogy because the detective is faced with outside pressures that require going forward on what limited evidence is available, regardless of how strong it is. There is no corresponding pressure with regard to the question of God's existence. The default position for the detective is indeed that the cause of death is undetermined. "I will make every effort to determine the cause of death" is a description of the detective's job, not the default position against which positive assertions must be tested. If at the end of the investigation no evidence strong enough to lead to any particular cause of death, the conclusion (such as it is) remains at the default position of "unknown."EduChris wrote:Let's think of another example. A homicide detective is charged with investigating a possible crime scene. The detective must decide where--on the spectrum that runs from "Premeditated Murder" to "Accident" to "Natural Causes--she will finally mark her professional determination. The detective cannot claim ignorance--she cannot check the box for "Unknown" or "Undetermined"--until after she has produced whatever positive arguments she can for each possibility (running from "Premeditated Murder" to "Accident" to "Natural Causes").Haven wrote:...Consider this example..."fairies exist."...Which person has the burden of proof in this scenario?...
In other words, the detective must perform due diligence. She can't just mark every possible crime scene as "Undetermined" or "Inconclusive" and then go home to take a nap. She must perform her professional duty. "Undetermined" is a conclusion, rather than a starting point. The starting point for the detective is, "I will make every effort to determine the cause of death."
Post #32
As it stands, that appears to be an assertion (at least if we omit the question mark). Is there any way that you can flesh out the assertion, so that it takes the form of a valid argument? Why is theism wasteful? Wasteful as compared to what? Why should we think that theism ought not be wasteful (in whatever sense you seem to think it might be wasteful)?Nilloc James wrote:Theism is a wasteful hypothesis?
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 #33
I am not giving an analogy here; rather, I am providing an example of how we should proceed, given the terms of the OP. Let's act as though we are all professional detectives charged with performing due diligence.Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...This is a false analogy because the detective is faced with outside pressures...
Please honor the parameters of the OP. Do not clutter the thread with off-topic responses.
If you are able, please provide some non-fallacious argument for the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."
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 #34The point is not to prove anything; rather, the point of this thread is to determine whether there any non-fallacious arguments for the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."Morphine wrote:...Now I see what you're asking for...But I don't see the point...
If there are non-fallacious arguments, wouldn't you like to know what they are?
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
-
Fuzzy Dunlop
- Guru
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am
Post #35
I see. I suppose I misunderstood as you were responding to Haven's analogy with a different example as if to correct it. If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that we approach the question of God's existence not as if we were analyzing it rationally under normal circumstances, but as if we were a detective or computer program.EduChris wrote:I am not giving an analogy here; rather, I am providing an example of how we should proceed, given the terms of the OP. Let's act as though we are all professional detectives charged with performing due diligence.Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...This is a false analogy because the detective is faced with outside pressures...
That said it is hardly off-topic to discuss the premises of the OP and whether or not they are fallacious.
Post #36
I am suggesting that we act as though our assigned task were to formulate non-fallacious arguments on behalf of the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that we approach the question of God's existence not as if we were analyzing it rationally under normal circumstances, but as if we were a detective or computer program...
The OP does not assert that there is no "default position"; rather, it asks that we not rely on any such (real or imagined) "default position" in the performance of our assigned task--viz, to focus our attention on finding any and all non-fallacious arguments for the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...it is hardly off-topic to discuss the premises of the OP and whether or not they are fallacious.
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 #37Your scenario is a fallacy in itself as it defines something into existence. You already define god as the "personal source of all possibility". This is just another version of the ontological argument.EduChris wrote: 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.
Re: Are there any non-fallacious arguments for non-theism?
Post #38The scenario simply asks us to: 1) put our thinking caps on; 2) forego any real or imagined "default position"; and 3) actively formulate as many non-fallacious arguments as we can for the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."Justin108 wrote:...Your scenario is a fallacy in itself...
Are you able to conform to the parameters of the OP? If so, what positive argument(s) can you provide in support of the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case"?
Last edited by EduChris on Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:26 pm, edited 1 time 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
-
Fuzzy Dunlop
- Guru
- Posts: 1137
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:24 am
Post #39
Granted, and the thread itself is not exactly an uninteresting exercise. Nonetheless it must be pointed out that the entire discussion is based upon a fallacious premise and any potential conclusions drawn from it must be considered in light of this.EduChris wrote:I am suggesting that we act as though our assigned task were to formulate non-fallacious arguments on behalf of the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that we approach the question of God's existence not as if we were analyzing it rationally under normal circumstances, but as if we were a detective or computer program...
The OP does not assert that there is no "default position"; rather, it asks that we not rely on any such (real or imagined) "default position" in the performance of our assigned task--viz, to focus our attention on finding any and all non-fallacious arguments for the philosophical position that "theism need not be the case."Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:...it is hardly off-topic to discuss the premises of the OP and whether or not they are fallacious.
Post #40
Since we are discussing theism which positive arguments might she be able to produce for the possibility of being stricken by God and how many would take her seriously?EduChris wrote:Let's think of another example. A homicide detective is charged with investigating a possible crime scene. The detective must decide where--on the spectrum that runs from "Premeditated Murder" to "Accident" to "Natural Causes--she will finally mark her professional determination. The detective cannot claim ignorance--she cannot check the box for "Unknown" or "Undetermined"--until after she has produced whatever positive arguments she can for each possibility (running from "Premeditated Murder" to "Accident" to "Natural Causes").Haven wrote:...Consider this example..."fairies exist."...Which person has the burden of proof in this scenario?...
I know, unrelated to the op but goes to the credibility of positing God as a possible cause.
