Minimalist Theism v non-Theism

[McCulloch]

For the purposes of this debate, God is defined as

• an ultimate, absolute, necessary and non-contingent reality which affords the contingent reality of our lives and of the entire universe and to which we humans (individually or collectively) might actually matter in some way, whether by personal divine response or by divinely-established autonomic reaction.

Using this definition only, can it be determined that theism is more or less reasonable than non-theism?

Does this form of theism provide any improved explanatory scope over non-theism?

Does theism fit well with other scholarly disciplines?

Is theism, minimally defined, internally coherent?

[EduChris]

For the purposes of this debate, God is defined as

• an ultimate, absolute, necessary and non-contingent reality which affords the contingent reality of our lives and of the entire universe and to which we humans (individually or collectively) might actually matter in some way, whether by personal divine response or by divinely-established autonomic reaction.

Using this definition only, can it be determined that theism is more or less reasonable than non-theism?

Theism is the more rational axiom not because of evidence (which is not available to axioms generally) but because theism is the more fruitful starting position, as I have argued on this thread.

...Does this form of theism provide any improved explanatory scope over non-theism?...

Given that theistically neutral science seems incapable of validating itself or providing any explanation of ultimate origins, it does seem that theism has a slight edge over non-theism with respect to explanatory scope. Theism can incorporate any truth that is available to non-theism, while at the same time offering a plausible, internally coherent explanation of ultimate origins that is unavailable to non-theism.

...Does theism fit well with other scholarly disciplines?...

Of course, assuming that the other scholarly disciplines don't arbitrarily rule out the possibility of equally plausible axioms.

...Is theism, minimally defined, internally coherent?

We could endeavor to find out. I'm pretty sure that any attempt to demonstrate its incoherence would fail.

[Goat]

For the purposes of this debate, God is defined as

• an ultimate, absolute, necessary and non-contingent reality which affords the contingent reality of our lives and of the entire universe and to which we humans (individually or collectively) might actually matter in some way, whether by personal divine response or by divinely-established autonomic reaction.

Using this definition only, can it be determined that theism is more or less reasonable than non-theism?

I see no difference between this, and the standard theistic definition, except that it substitutes more complicated words to obscure things.

Does this form of theism provide any improved explanatory scope over non-theism?

It's the same old theism, using really big words for double talk. As such, it's explanatory powers is even less than normal theism. Anytime people try to complicate communication by using double talk and gobblegook, it means they have no extra information or argument, but want to make themselves feel clever.

Does theism fit well with other scholarly disciplines?

It almost fits in with the study of philosophy or any discipline that is purely opinion driven, and does not have to worry about validating results.

Is theism, minimally defined, internally coherent?

Probably.. it might have a valid form, but it is not sound.

[Ragna]

For the purposes of this debate, God is defined as

• an ultimate, absolute, necessary and non-contingent reality which affords the contingent reality of our lives and of the entire universe and to which we humans (individually or collectively) might actually matter in some way, whether by personal divine response or by divinely-established autonomic reaction.

Using this definition only, can it be determined that theism is more or less reasonable than non-theism?

Does this form of theism provide any improved explanatory scope over non-theism?

Does theism fit well with other scholarly disciplines?

Is theism, minimally defined, internally coherent?

If theism is that, non-theism is the disbelief on that. And there is no reason to believe that such a non-contingent reality exists, the alternative being that the universe might have a reason of existence from within itself, a natural one, if to ask for such a reason is meaningful (that is, if causality holds in there).

In my opinion, theism is not falsifiable but so is Russell's teapot... This definition is valid from its axioms, but the question remains: Why is causality valid to confront the origin of the universe? Why is the universe not necessary itself?

[Furrowed Brow]

Theism can incorporate any truth that is available to non-theism,

Only so long as that “truth� is not open to evidence, verification and falsification. (See point 2 below)

while at the same time offering a plausible, internally coherent explanation of ultimate origins that is unavailable to non-theism.

There seems to be two dubious issues here.

• 1/ Does the theism make sense?
  2/ Is the theism meaningful i.e. does it form a proposition that is True or False.

[Furrowed Brow]

Does this form of theism provide any improved explanatory scope over non-theism?

Theism allows for more words and terms but it’s explanatory scope is no wider if it says nothing that can be falsified. Putting a collection of words togther that follows the rules of grammar and have meaning in the dictionary fails to explain anything if they fail to form a proposition (Wittgenstein), or fail to sit within a network of sentences linked to at least some propositions that are true or false of reality(Quine).

Does theism fit well with other scholarly disciplines?

I suppose it dovetails philosophy of religion. But I don’t think that is what you meant by “fit�. Theology should be classed with those subjects that do not expose themselves to falsification like astrology, Freudian Psychology etc.

Is theism, minimally defined, internally coherent?

By definition it is not minimal. It invents a supernatural that resides over the natural.

Internally coherent? No.

"non-contingent reality which affords the contingent reality"
I do not know what this means, and I am sure it makes no sense.

[Vince]

For the purposes of this debate, God is defined as

• an ultimate, absolute, necessary and non-contingent reality which affords the contingent reality of our lives and of the entire universe and to which we humans (individually or collectively) might actually matter in some way, whether by personal divine response or by divinely-established autonomic reaction.

Using this definition only, can it be determined that theism is more or less reasonable than non-theism?

No, if this being exists it's existence is unknowable to man kind (at least to this point in our history), this type of ambiguity serves no purpose and I see no reason to even consider it without some accompanying evidence that this being is something other than fantasy.

Does this form of theism provide any improved explanatory scope over non-theism?

It is not clear in what way this being is 'necessary' or whether or not humanity 'might actually matter in some way' or if this being does anything at all other than exist, non-contingently of course. Without insight into what this being does, or has done theism does not offer any explanatory power at all.

Non-theism is simply a position of rejecting theism, what explanatory power could non-theism possibly posses other than why theism is not true?

Does theism fit well with other scholarly disciplines?

Yes, I'm not aware of any scholarly fact that states that a non-acting, non-contingent being that may or may not care about humanity can not exist.

Is theism, minimally defined, internally coherent?

I don't see any internal flaws at first glance.

[sleepyhead]

For the purposes of this debate, God is defined as

• an ultimate, absolute, necessary and non-contingent reality which affords the contingent reality of our lives and of the entire universe and to which we humans (individually or collectively) might actually matter in some way, whether by personal divine response or by divinely-established autonomic reaction.

Using this definition only, can it be determined that theism is more or less reasonable than non-theism?

Does this form of theism provide any improved explanatory scope over non-theism?

Does theism fit well with other scholarly disciplines?

Is theism, minimally defined, internally coherent?

Hello,

I also found your definition difficult to grasp. In the "A higher being: is it logical" thread we discussed the unlearned ability of the bee to communicate with other members of its species which we called instinct. If we claimed that this instinct for both the bee and all other animals (including us) was out there in the universe and that the bee just naturally tapped into what was useful to him, would that make this information God according to your definition?

[Ragna]

I would like to add that the explanatory scope of this kind of theism would be none. This kind of theism just seems to push the problems one step further, into an unfalsifiable plane, so this way it somehow is better.

Atheism usually presents that the universe is all there is. If this is so, the question of a cause of the universe losses its meaning as the universe would be necessary itself.

Theism presents a further, unfalsifiable and unknowable reality that is the cause of the universe. Now, to avoid an infinite regress, this unknowable and unfalsifiable reality is defined as necessary.

Now,

Theism is the more rational axiom not because of evidence (which is not available to axioms generally) but because theism is the more fruitful starting position, as I have argued on this thread.

Theism is not rational, because no rational argument can be made to show the existence of such an unknowable reality. If so, present a non-fallacious one on this thread.

Given that theistically neutral science seems incapable of validating itself or providing any explanation of ultimate origins, it does seem that theism has a slight edge over non-theism with respect to explanatory scope. Theism can incorporate any truth that is available to non-theism, while at the same time offering a plausible, internally coherent explanation of ultimate origins that is unavailable to non-theism.

The explanatory scope of theism adds nothing to the one of non-theism about ultimate origins, as beyond the universe all is speculation. If you find saying that the universe doesn't have a cause (that it's necessary) illogical, then you can hardly defend it for the necessary reality you are presenting, which cannot even be shown to exist in principle, much less its necessity.

Why God doesn't need a cause but the universe does?
Why is it rational to look for the cause of the universe outside the universe?
What is meant by outside the universe?

When theism gives us a reason to think there could be things outside the universe, it will gain credibility. Until then, it's just unsupported claims.