Problems and Questions in Atheism

[JohnMartin]

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post

Problems and Questions Posed.

Theism means concludes to God does exist, ...

No it doesn't. Theism means belief in one or more gods. It does not require the belief to be a logical conclusion, nor is it specific to JM's God. JM has fallen into the classic apologist blinkeredness of trying to address 'theism' and 'atheism' while ignoring any religious beliefs other than his own. Thus any 'problems' or conclusions he reaches will only apply to his specific beliefs, not to theism or atheism in general. He's doomed to failure before he's gone more than 5 words.

According to the webster dictionary, theism is the belief that God exists or that many gods exist. This can be reduced to many gods are God, which means theism is the belief in the existence of God. My thread does not deal directly with polytheism, for polytheism, like pantheism and deism is false. I have focussed this thread on atheism and referred atheism back to the true theism to the theism of reason, which is the implied monotheism.

... which is known through reason, ...

Again, no it isn't. Theism almost never results from reasoning, and certainly doesn't in JM's case. His reasoning is a prop for already held beliefs, not the basis for those beliefs.

Atheism concludes to God does not exist.

No it doesn't. Atheism is not limited to JM's religion, and (using JM's terminology) does not conclude that God does exist.

Therefore in accord with point 2 above, atheism either

1) affirms the existence of an uncaused cause, which is understood not to be God or

2) denies the existence of the uncaused cause, and thereby denies the existence of God as the uncaused cause.

Atheism does neither of these.

So prove it Roy.

JM-atheism doesn't either, since a JM-atheist could affirm the existence of an uncaused cause which is understood to be God, but not accept that God is the supreme being.

Even after redefining 'atheism' to suit his argument JM fails to understand his own definition.

Theism concludes that the uncaused cause, is pure act, without potency, which is God.

No it doesn't. Thomism might (though I doubt it), but theism in general does not.

Roy is correct, but Roy could also have determined quite easily that I was arguing for monotheism, and used the term, theism accordingly.

In other words, God is act without limit, or infinite act.

Also, JM's use of 'potency' is suspect. If he's using the normal definition he's just described his God as impotent, which is unlikely, so he probably has some private definition of 'potency' which he hasn't shared.

Potency is that which can be or can do.

No, that doesn't mean the same thing - an uncaused cause is not necessarily unlimited.

Proven above.

This is merely a false assertion. The uncaused cause is demonstrated to be both unlimited, as shown above, and God in natural theology.

Since JM's definition of 'God' does not include being unlimited, this can be possible even if God exists and even if it is conceded that it is not possible for two discrete unlimited entities to exist simultaneously.

We can derive God as pure act as shown above. Roys objection is answered.

5. The uncaused cause is limited by potency. - T

False for the same reason.

Answered above.

It is not gibberish.

Potency is can be or can do.
Act is does be or does do.

However, the following arguments show lines 1 to 6 are false. The lines showing where lines 2-6 are false are given in brackets, for example (2), (3) and so on.

God is pure act.
But atheism concludes that God does not exist.
Therefore pure act (which is act without potency) does not exist.
False. (X in Y, !X) -/-> !Y. Something else that is pure act could exist.

Therefore everything that exists is composed of potency and act.
False if pure potency can exist. I've no idea whether it can, since JM is using his own personal private definition for 'potency', but regardless the logic is flawed.

Not demonstrated.

Yet what is composed of potency and act is caused by another.
For potency causes potency, and act, act, which are then diverse causes.
If potency causes potency, and God lacks potency, but potency exists, then God is not the only uncaused cause.
Yet when potency and act are found united in a thing, the unity is not caused by the diversity of potency and act, but by another cause of the unity.
But what is caused by another is not an uncaused cause.
Therefore an uncaused cause which is limited does not exist. (4)

Sure it does. If act causes act and potency causes potency, there must be at least two uncaused causes, and at least one of them must be limited.

Potency as pure potency, does not cause anything in act, for pure potency is the prime can be. The prime can be (also termed primary matter), is what can be anything, which includes potency to be a cause. As potency to be a cause is not a cause in act, then prime potency is not a prime cause. Prime potency from itself alone does not act to cause anything. Prime potency is only ever in potency to act. Hence prime potency is not an uncaused cause.

However, the prime act, is the prime act to be, which is then the uncaused cause.

Consequently, an uncaused cause which is unlimited, does exist.

What is unlimited is pure act.

But not necessarily the other way around. Pure act is not necessarily unlimited.

This is just another Roy assertion which has been proven false above.

Potency is the cause of limit of act.
Pure act is act without potency.
Hence pure act has no limit of be.

Roy has a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of being. This is one of many reasons why Roy is an atheist. He just doesn't get what being is. I suggest he dive into some good books on metaphysics and natural philosophy at the Thomistic Philosophy page.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Ye gods. Apparently in moonbatmetropolis wood doesn't come from trees and get eaten away by bacteria, it magically appears in timber yards and poofs out of existence with a quiet 'pop' from dumpsites.

Once again the most rational explanation is that JM is an institutionalised inmate who is never allowed out of his cell.

Or Roy just doesn't get what being is, or act, or potency, or nature. Hence he doesn't get the argument.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I think the major problem is that JM is a blithering idiot who has no understanding of logic, reasoning or how to form a coherent argument, while at the same time believing himself to be smarter than Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, NASA and 99% of the world's population including everyone who works in relevant fields.

You make fundamental errors about being.

Roy - Pure act is not necessarily unlimited.

Yeh right.

Pure act is the act which is unlimited.

Good one Roy.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Therefore a thing with metaphysical parts of act and potency is caused by another cause as the cause of the unity of potency and act.
Therefore an uncaused cause, which is limited by potency, is a caused cause.

No. This whole thing is a futile exercise in circular argumentation and assuming the conclusion. Stripped of the excess verbiage the argument becomes:
1. A limited uncaused cause would have potency and act.
2. Anything with potency and act must be caused
3. Therefore there can be no limited uncaused cause.
But #2 is never justified. The extended arguing serves only to conceal that fact in a jungle of verbiage.

To prove - Anything with potency and act must be caused

Act is does be.
Potency is can be.
Act is not potency and potency is not act.
Hence act and potency are diverse modes of being.
Yet in a thing composed of act and potency, act and potency are united.
But act and potency are of themselves diverse.
And what are the causes of diversity are diverse.
And what is the cause of unity, unites the diverse.
So, whatever are of themselves diverse, but found united, are united by another cause as the cause of unity of the diverse.
But a thing is one with itself, and therefore a unity.
Hence a thing composed of act and potency must be caused by another cause as the cause of unity.
Therefore as the unity of a composed thing is caused by another cause,
And as a thing can be anything, then anything, must be caused by another cause.
Therefore anything with potency and act must be caused by another.
Therefore anything with potency and act must be caused.

Or more simply in summary form.

That thing which is composed by diverse causes of being, must have the cause of its unity of being in another cause, other than the cause of diversity of being. That other cause, is other than the thing, which itself is a unity of being. Such as being is the prime being, as the universal cause of all being, which is God.

(Which implies according to atheism, that an uncaused cause is not the prime act). (1)

Yet what is both an uncaused cause and a caused cause is ontologically both A and not A.
And what is both A and not A is ontologically absurd, for a thing is always one with itself and not the negation of itself.
Therefore a limited, uncaused cause is both logically and ontologically false. (1 and 4)
As the statements 1) The uncaused cause is limited by potency, and 2) an uncaused cause is composed of potency and act, follow from the false statement, the uncaused cause that exists is a limited act (4), then (5) and (6) are also false.

Basic failure of logic here. Something that follows from a false statement may be true. In fact all true statements follow from false statements, since a false statement can lead to any conclusion at all.

Even so, 1) The uncaused cause is limited by potency, and 2) an uncaused cause is composed of potency and act are false anyway, regardless of my error.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Scenario 2- If atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause.

Alternatively, if atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause, then atheism affirms only the existence of caused causes. A cause is defined as that which has a positive influence according to the being of another.

No it isn't. Argument rejected immediately because it relies on redefining the words used.
An effect is defined as that which is positively influenced by the being of another.

Not established, but only asserted. The definition of cause is correct.

2 An infinite series of causes acting now, such as A causes B causes C etc. This series in an ontological series whereby each member of the series acts now, to be caused and to cause another. But this series has no end, for each cause is a caused cause.
So?

This series is also inadequate to explain causation as each member of the series has the same deficiency of cause.

And again JM's argument is no more than 'I don't like it'. No actual inadequacy has been shown.
For each member is dependent upon another member for a positive influence regarding the being of another, when each member of the series has the same deficiency in be. As the same deficiency exists in each member, then no member is a cause in the series.

No. Same deficiency is stated and then ignored by Roy.

The problem is proposed and reasons given, which have been ignored.

If it is objected that an infinite series of causes acting now can and does actually exist, then 1) such a series is infinite which concludes to a series with an infinite be, which is very close to the prime being of theism (which has an infinite being).

No it isn't. This is utter crap. An infinite series of events and an intelligent being of infinite power share only the word "infinite". JM has excelled himself here. He might as well be arguing that 'Big Yellow Taxi' and a yellowhammer are the same thing because they share the word "yellow".

Therefore atheism must posit a being very much like the prime, infinite being of theism to explain causation.

Bovine faeces.

In effect, atheism must posit a quasi-god, to explain causation.
Still bovine faeces.

These are not answers that engage the arguments presented.

In doing so, atheism requires the existence of a false god in the place of the prime cause to explain causation.

Even if JM-atheism did posit such a quasi-god to explain causation, it wouldn't be a false god, it would [not] be a real one. JM's 'argument', if it even deserves the name, is simply that any god other than the one he believes in is false therefore JM-atheism is false. This wouldn't convince a five-year-old. Or JM himself.

... and 3) any superior explanatory value over the prime being of theism.

But JM's prime being of theism doesn't have any superior explanatory value over an infinite series of causes. The two are equally explanatory. Once again JM's reason for rejecting JM-atheism is purely that he doesn't like it.

It is and you have not solves the problem.

And 2 - Atheism means the prime cause does not exist, but then consequently an infinite series of secondary causes do exist. The infinite series of secondary causes is itself self-causing, which is analogous to the prime cause of theism, which is self-causing.
And 'Big Yellow Taxi' is analogous to a yellowhammer, and John Martin lives in a clay ball under some guttering.

And Roy has avoided the problem again.

Therefore atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause, but posits the existence of self-sustaining series of caused causes. Therefore atheism requires a quasi-prime cause to account for causation, analogous to the real prime cause of theism. Atheism is therefore quasi theistic to have any explanatory value. But to be quasi theistic is not atheistic.

Yes it is. Being quasi-theistic means being apparently but not actually theistic, i.e. being atheistic (but looking theistic).

Atheism requires there by no prime being as the prime being is the conclusion of monotheism. Atheism must then provide a sufficient reason of be for things existing in a quasi prime being, which is sorta like theism, but not quite theism.

Therefore atheism is self-contradictory.

The actual conclusion has nothing to do with atheism (or even JM_atheism), and a lot to do with JM's inability to form logical arguments.

By avoiding the problem.

And 3 Atheism requires an infinite series of caused causes, wherever there is a secondary causes acting now. For atheism requires that no cause be uncaused. Therefore because there are many causes acting now, there must be many infinite series of causes acting now. Therefore atheism requires many series with infinite being, which infers a form of quasi polytheism.

Not if a single cause can produce multiple effects. Apparently JM doesn't understand branching. Perhaps his mind is on a higher plane.

Only being causes being, for being is the fundamental act.

Why? Theism concludes to one God who is infinite being. Polytheism concludes to many gods with each god having much being (or infinite being). As atheism requires many large beings...

Infinite causal chains still aren't beings, no matter how much JM would like them to be.

... to account for causation, atheism concludes to a quasi-polytheism. But quasi polytheism is not atheism, therefore atheism is self-contradictory.

Quasi-polytheism is by definition not polytheism, so could be JM-atheism and there is no contradiction.

Quasi polytheism is a form of polytheism, for polytheism posits many gods. Those gods are by definite composed of potency and act, just as infinite series of being.

The false solution of the quasi-polytheism only shows atheism is a false world view. All solutions to the problem of being resolve to a false conclusion. Why? Because atheism is false.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Atheism and the problems associated with the denial of the Necessary Being.

Theism affirms the existence of God as the necessary being, therefore atheism denies the existence of the necessary being and concludes that every thing that exists is a contingent being.

No it doesn't. Denying the existence of God is not the same as denying the existence of all other possible necessary beings.

All other possible necessary beings is a false statement. There is only one necessary being.

Yet again JM's 'refutation' of atheism consists solely of saying' atheism is wrong because it differs from theism.

The refutation of atheism is given in another thread by demonstrating theism is true. This thread is devoted to proposing problems with atheism. Your claims of me making assertions, only means you have not read or not included the truths of the other thread.

If the atheist insists that the infinite series does exist, then the above same problems found in the theme of causation also exist for the problem of contingency, namely that atheism concludes to the contingent quasi god with an infinite being and contingent polytheism required to explain the existence of contingent beings.

This is a false answer. The problem remains.

If the atheism insists contingent beings exist from themselves, ...

False. They exist from their infinite predecessors.

... and thereby save the conclusion of atheism, namely that all causes are caused causes.

Not correct. That is not a conclusion of atheism, or even of JM-atheism.

False. Atheism requires that all causes be caused, for the uncaused cause is God.

But the cause distinct from the universe is also caused and so on. Therefore atheism concludes to an infinite series of caused causes, which is a quasi-god which sustains the universe. Such a god has never been proven to exist and even if it does exist, contradicts atheism, which concludes to God does not exist.

Not content with claiming that an infinite series of events is a quasi-god, JM is now claiming that an infinite series of events is now God.

An infinite series of events is now a quasi god, for the series has an infinite be, like that of the real God, who is infinite be.

JM's argument in a nutshell:
1. Atheism says God doesn't exist.
2. Therefore something other than God must exist.
3. But "something other than God" is like "God".
4. Therefore God exists and atheism is wrong.

Atheism says there is no god, which includes there is no quasi god, of infinite being. Hence even a quasi god of infinite being contradicts atheism.

Your answer concludes to agnosticism and not atheism. Also I do know, simply because the prime being (God) is the universal cause of all being, hence God is the cause of the universe.

Correct. Being by participation implies being by nature.

Correct. Any contingent being points to the necessary being as the ultimate reason of be of the contingent.

Of course all the above is dependent on JM's peculiar theism, so all JM is doing is saying: Atheism. But theism. Therefore theism.

Or not. Such a being is either the true god of theism or the false pseudo god of atheism. Either way, if the universe exists, atheism concludes to a form of theism. If the universe exists, then atheism is always false. The universe exists, therefore atheism is always false.
If this is true, then why bother with any of the rest?

Of course it's not true. It's either a variation of the Sir Humphrey Appleby fallacy:

Something must have initiated the universe.
God is something.
Therefore God initiated the universe.

or a mental fixation/total lack of imagination:

Something must have initiated the universe.
"God".
Therefore God initiated the universe.

If something exists, then its ultimate reason of be is the necessary being.

Whatever that possibility is, its ultimate reason of be is God.

4) If the universe exists then atheism must conclude to a form of theism to account for being, or a form of mindless superstition. As atheism denies theism, then it concludes to mindless superstition, therefore atheism is equivalent to mindless superstition. As a denial of theism or the affirmation of mindless superstition are always false, then atheism is always false.

So atheism is false because a denial of theism is false? And JM thinks this is even remotely close to being a valid argument? He's even dumber than I thought.

Monotheism is true.
A negation of true, is not true.
Not true is false.
Atheism is a negation of theism.
Atheism is a negation of true.
Atheism is not true.
Therefore atheism is false.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Sufficient reason is required to provide a reason of be for a thing to exist. To deny the principle of sufficient reason is to deny sufficient causation is required in the real.

The denial of sufficient reason is further evidence that atheism is an irrational belief whereby all things that exist, do so via a mindless superstition.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Or not. Such a being is either the true god of theism or the false pseudo god of atheism. Either way, if the universe exists, atheism concludes to a form of theism. If the universe exists, then atheism is always false. The universe exists, therefore atheism is always false.
If this is true, then why bother with any of the rest?

Of course it's not true. It's either a variation of the Sir Humphrey Appleby fallacy:

Something must have initiated the universe.
God is something.
Therefore God initiated the universe.

or a mental fixation/total lack of imagination:

Something must have initiated the universe.
"God".
Therefore God initiated the universe.
If something exists, then its ultimate reason of be is the necessary being.

JM

If something exists, then its ultimate reason of be is the necessary being. Even Sir Humphrey Appleby could know this is true.

JM

[JohnMartin]

6) 5) If atheism affirms the existence of the universe, then it must A) affirm the existence of a prime being, or B) not. If affirm, then atheism concludes to monotheism, which concludes to atheism as false. If atheism denies the prime beings existence, then atheism concludes to the prime being is a non being. Atheism then seeks to account for the existence of the universe whereby the ultimate cause of the universe is nothing.

Utter piffle. This is akin to saying that if a broken window wasn't an act of God it must have no cause at all.

The broken window concludes to God as the prime cause.

This is not an answer.

Such a conclusion is self-contradictory. What is self contradictory is false. As atheism is self contradictory, atheism is false.

JM-atheism is not self-contradictory, it merely contradicts JM-theism. JM obviously can't tell the difference.

The problem of the denial of God as the universal cause of being

3) Atheism concludes to no universal cause of being, for theism concludes that God is the prime, universal cause of being, which is denied by atheism. If there is no universal cause of being, then all being is only caused specifically, by each specific thing that exists. Therefore according to atheism, when a thing is in act, the thing causes itself to exist.

So either God causes everything or everything causes itself? JM can't even think of any other possibilities? Furrfu.

As ultimate reason of be, there are only two options for the cause of being. The ultimate cause of being is either the prime being, or each specific thing. Any other cause is merely an intermediate cause other than the specific thing, which concludes to the one universal cause of being in God. To posit another option other than God, or the specific thing, as Roy does, only means Roy must conclude to another thing causes the being of a specific thing. Yet such an answer does not provide sufficient reason for the being of any thing at all. For another thing as cause of the being of a thing, only delays the problem ontologically one step prior to the thing. To delay the answer without providing an answer, does not provide an ultimate reason of be for any specific thing.

Even if Roy posits another cause of being outside the contingent thing, what evidence does he have for such a thing actually existing, ontologically prior to the contingent thing? No evidence at all. In fact there is no creature known by reason alone that acts to cause the being of another contingent thing. To posit that such exists, means Roy must go beyond reason into speculation, or perhaps revelation and posit the existence of spirits which do not have bodies and thereby permeate all bodies to keep those bodies in existence. Yet to do this would mean he must move from atheism to accepting things that exist (such as angels) by faith. But faith is excluded by atheism.

Even if Roy can somehow avoid these problems he must also propose the means by which a creature can cause the being of another creature. I say this is impossible, for only that which is being, can cause being. As creatures only have being, they cannot be ontologically prior to other creatures and they cannot cause the being of other creatures.

But, as being is the prime perfection in things, then the being of the thing must be caused by

A) Another being which is itself being according to nature, for only being causes being. This other being is God,...

Why can't it be the Great Green Arkleseizure or the giant mutant star goat?

Both do not have an identity of essence and be. Even if we posit that they do, then we simply do not have enough information from reason alone to know the name of the prime being. Such must be revealed by God. To know the milk is delivered by the milkman does not conclude to knowing the name of the milkman.

... who is both ontologically prior to creatures and the universal cause of being. As atheism denies the existence of the prime being, which is ontologically prior to creatures, the being of creatures cannot be caused by God.

Or

B) The thing itself. As a cause has being, and the thing has being, for a thing to cause itself means the thing is a cause which is ontologically prior to itself. Such ontological priority means the thing must cause itself before it is in act. Therefore, both 1) the cause must exist before the thing exists, and 2) yet the thing must exist prior to its cause of being to provide the being of the cause of the thing. Such convoluted need for causation prior to the thing existing and the thing existing prior to its own cause of its existence indicates the atheistic need for specific things to cause their own existence is ontologically impossible.

This applies to any uncaused cause - so much for God then.

There is no such thing as any uncaused cause. There is only one uncaused cause which is pure act, as proven in a recent post.

Atheism is very problematic. In fact it seems atheism has no explanatory value and is also absurd. We shall see how the atheists answer the problems and questions posed above. I doubt there will be any compelling answers at all.

I doubt JM will find anything I've said compelling.

It's enough to note that every single one of his problems reduces to one of
- atheism contradicts theism, therefore theism

False. Atheism is full of problems and absurdities as shown in recent posts.

- I can't think of anything other than God, therefore theism

- I prefer theism, therefore theism

No. I do prefer theism, because theism has the only way to explain being. Atheism however cannot explain being at all. In fact, the logic of atheism concludes to being as a null set.

- Atheism uses the same terms as theism, therefore theism

No. Atheism uses the same terms, but cannot provide sufficient reason for being.

and of course
- Theism, therefore theism

The principle of identity. Nothing wrong here.

Roy has a problem with believing in the existence of a being that is without limit. Such is required for atheism to be true. Can Roy prove that an infinite being cannot exist? No he cannot. His belief is merely his opinion at odds with reason.

Roy has tried to answer a few of the problems posed with atheism, but has failed. I predict he will not substantially answer the problem of being within atheism. Why not? Because it simply cannot be answered. Only monotheism can provide the solution to the problem of being, because monotheism is true.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

The PSR is a principle, dependent upon the principle of noncontradiction

Not just because you say so, it isn't.

and a consequence of that principle as shown in post 14

You asserted it. You did not show it.

You have merely asserted the PSR is an assumption, without presenting any evidence.

Until you prove it, you are by definition only assuming it.

[JohnMartin]

Some questions to clarify atheism.

Does atheism conclude to the existence of 1-7 below?

1 the unmoved mover
2 the uncaused cause
3 the unperfected perfector
4 the unordered orderer
5 the necessary being
6 the universal cause of being
7 the prime being and therefore the supreme being.

If yes, how does atheism conclude to all of 1-7 above as ". . . is not God". For example 1) the unmoved mover is not God, 2) the uncaused cause is not God? etc.

If no, then atheism requires that -

1 there is no unmoved mover, and consequently all motion is explained according to moved movers.

2 there is no uncaused cause, and consequently all causation is explained according to caused causes.

3 there is no unperfected perfector, and consequently all perfection is explained according to perfected perfectors.

4 there is no unordered orderer, and consequently all order is explained according to ordered orderers.

5 there is no necessary being, and consequently all being is explained as contingent being.

6 there is no universal cause of being, and consequently all causation is explained according to caused causes.

7 there is no prime being and therefore there is no supreme being, and consequently all being is explained according to secondary being.

As such, consequent to atheism's conclusions, that all motion, causation, perfection, order, and being is without a prime, how does the atheist explain such? For example, if all causes are caused causes, how is the existence of causation explained?

Atheism either affirms or denies the existence of an infinite being. If affirmed, how does atheism explain the existence of an infinite being without reference or any implication that such a being is God? If denied, how does atheism arrive at the conclusion that an infinite being cannot exist?

If atheism requires there to be no being beyond the universe, how does atheism prove that no being is beyond the universe?

Also following this question, how does atheism refute pantheism, which says the universe is self sustaining, and therefore God?

If atheism permits there to be a being beyond the universe, how does atheism prove that such a is not God?

JM

[Roy]

Theism means concludes to God does exist, ...

No it doesn't. Theism means belief in one or more gods. It does not require the belief to be a logical conclusion, nor is it specific to JM's God. JM has fallen into the classic apologist blinkeredness of trying to address 'theism' and 'atheism' while ignoring any religious beliefs other than his own. Thus any 'problems' or conclusions he reaches will only apply to his specific beliefs, not to theism or atheism in general. He's doomed to failure before he's gone more than 5 words.

According to the webster dictionary, theism is the belief that God exists or that many gods exist. This can be reduced to many gods are God, ...

No it can't.

... which means theism is the belief in the existence of God.

Bovine faeces. Theism is belief in the existence of one or more gods. It is not belief in your God, no matter how much you want it to be.

I have focussed this thread on atheism and referred atheism back to the true theism to the theism of reason, which is the implied monotheism.

Which is why none of your arguments against atheism will ever work.

Rest ignored.

[JohnMartin]

Not just because you say so, it isn't.


You asserted it. You did not show it.

Until you prove it, you are by definition only assuming it.

Demonstrated below by inspection.

To demonstrate the principle of sufficient reason is based upon the principle of non contradiction.

The principle of non contradiction says A is not, non A as a fundamental law of thought.

If A and is not A are compared, to invalidate a statement, then the principle of sufficient reason is based upon the principle of non contradiction.

Reason of be (A) is "that whereby a thing is" (A)
But "that whereby a thing is"(A) is "that without which the thing is not"(A).
For if "that whereby a thing is"(A) is not "that without which the thing is not"(not A), then the same is together:
That without which a thing is (not A); and that whereby it is (A).
Which is contradictory (A is not A).
Therefore reason of be is "that without which a thing is not"(A).
But if a thing is without "that without which it is not"(not A), then contradiction is had (A is not A), because then the same thing together (A is not A):
Is without something (not A);
And is not without the same (A).
Therefore if a thing (A) is without a reason of be (not A), then contradiction is had (A is not A).

As shown above, A and is not A are compared, to invalidate a statement. Then the principle of sufficient reason is based upon the principle of non contradiction.

Proven.

JM

[JohnMartin]

No it can't. Bovine faeces. Theism is belief in the existence of one or more gods. It is not belief in your God, no matter how much you want it to be.Which is why none of your arguments against atheism will ever work.

Rest ignored.

So change the statement to monotheism is the belief in a god. Then the rest follows. For atheism is also the negation of monotheism.

This is trivial.

In fact its so trivial that we both believe other forms of theism outside of monotheism are false. So why not compare atheism to theism as understood as monotheism, which I consider to be true? Why would I want to contrast atheism with other forms of false theism, when it can be demonstrated that only monotheism is true?

If theism is defined as belief in a god or gods, the definition can be refined according to true and false theism, whereby the false theism is removed, to then expose the truth of theism and the falsity of atheism. As poly theism is false and monotheism is true, then the definition of theism can be refined according to the truth value of theism, as the belief in a god that really exists.

In fact my arguments work better if theism is reduced to monotheism, because then we can better gauge the problems within atheism contrasted to the truth of monotheism. Such clarity is lost if other false forms of theism are also introduced as species of theism.

I currently think you are running away from critical evaluation of your statements and the real problems with atheism.

JM

[Roy]

Monotheism is true.
A negation of true, is not true.
Not true is false.
Atheism is a negation of theism.
Atheism is a negation of true.
Atheism is not true.
Therefore atheism is false.

Amazing. JM can't even deduce "atheism is false" from "monotheism is true" without making a complete pig's ear of it.

But the above nicely encapsulates all of JM's arguments in this thread: "Monotheism is true... Therefore atheism is false".