THEISM AND ATHEISM:JUSTIFIED BELIEF-DECISIONS FOR OR AGAINST THE CONCEPT OF GOD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In earnest, the debate between theism and atheism is related to the essence of God--the de renecessity of God,and not the mere in re existence of God. The de re necessity of God is an abstraction conjectured from the de dicto necessity for Godinferredfrom the contingency of the universe. As long as the universe exists, the de re necessity or essence of God will be debated. Causal necessity of the universe establishes the de dicto necessity for God, however, the attempt to stop the infinite regression or the chain of causation, postulates the de re necessity or noncontingent existence of God. Beliefs related to God are belief-decisions – decisions for or against the essence of God. Questions and concerns related to conscious life necessitate such beliefs. So the meaning of religious beliefs is not tied up with establishing the veracity of their truth, but with the relevance of the questions that make such beliefs necessary. While a good question can make millions think, a good answer can make millions debate its truth. When theists argue for the existence of God, theyargue for the existence of an existing being, and not for the existence of a non-existing being. However, if atheists argue the non-existence of God, then they cannot argue for the non-existence of an existing being, nor argue for the non-existence of a non-existing being. So what theists and atheists accept or reject is related to the existence or non-existence of a non-contingent being. However, an atheist is an atheist not because of the presence of theists, nor is a theist a theist because of the presence of atheists. Both theists and atheists address the same questions that necessitate decisions for or against the concept of God.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".