Dennis wrote:

John West wrote:

I voted for the third option. As far as I can tell, both theism and atheism are incoherent. (I'm happy to defend the thesis some time, if someone wants.)

Inb4 John's a deist! Well, of course I'd love to know what you think there. Time to find nominee's with whom you'll be exchanging blows!

I don't think deists are in any better shape than theists or atheists. (I'm not even sure they should be classed as “non-theists” here.) So no, I'm not a deist.

Jason wrote:

I would love to hear why you think that is the case. Although my case would be merely to learn from it rather than argue against it.

Well, that doesn't sound very fun. 
(Maybe I'll open a thread on it in a few months.)

John West wrote:

Dennis wrote:

Out of curiosity, John, what did you vote for?

I voted for the third option. As far as I can tell, both theism and atheism are incoherent. (I'm happy to defend the thesis some time, if someone wants.)

I remember a while back you stated that you find both spectrums incoherent and that you're now interested in exploring other choices. I probably sound like a complete idiot but I am struggling to find other avenues or alternatives to Theism and Atheism that someone would choose from. What other options could there possibly be?

Last edited by 884heid (6/17/2017 11:08 pm)

Here is the comment you're talking about, Heid:

I was [a theist] when we started the forum. Then I was an atheist—think Sydney line metaphysics—for a while. Now I've reached a sort of dialectical stalemate, and I'm exploring other avenues.

I was probably talking about non-dialectical ways of discerning whether theism is true. 

(A lot of people try to avoid discussing contradictions in their position by pointing out contradictions in their opponent's. I say all this says is that both positions appear to have contradictions in them and that, epistemically, it leaves us no further ahead with the first position.)

John West wrote:

Since I doubt I need to convince you guys that atheism is incoherent, here's a summary of one problem with classical theism. I expect that most of the argument would end up being over whether externalist conceptions of knowledge are viable.

Thanks for that link (I do not mean to thread jack this post)

The problem may be cast in the mold of an aporetic tetrad:

1. God is simple: there is nothing intrinsic to God that is distinct from God.

2. God knows some contingent truths.

3. Necessarily, if God knows some truth t, then (i) there an item intrinsic to God such as a mental act or a belief state (ii) whereby God knows t.

4. God exists necessarily.

I could totally be out for lunch on this, but with respect to the third point above could'nt we just say that God knows some truth because of who He is i.e. by His Nature. The "truthness" of a truth is instantiated by God. 

Last edited by Jason (6/18/2017 11:52 am)