Problems and Questions in Atheism

[JonathanL]

The broken record of self justification.

Can you clarify this for me, is this a response to Doug Shaver, or to JohnMartin?

[Roy]

Same, the broken record of self justification attacking my faith this time . . .

Oh, so you were talking about J(moonbat)M?

[shunyadragon]

Oh, so you were talking about J(moonbat)M?

Yes.

[shunyadragon]

Can you clarify this for me, is this a response to Doug Shaver, or to JohnMartin?

It was response to JM's post.

[JohnMartin]

The claim it does is from the basis of a presupposition of faith.



A less biased Logic concludes our physical existence simply exists, beyond this your on own circular reasoning and justification of what you believe without objective substance.

A biased logic does not exist. That's something you ave invented. The alleged circular reasoning and alleged lack of objective substance are also without evidence. Roy didn't evidence it even if you falsely think he did.

There is no objective evidence either way that would objectively demonstrate an 'uncaused cause' outside the universe.

The 'uncaused cause' outside the universe is not required as a conclusion. All that is required is an 'uncaused cause'. You have made another invention. The demonstration was given in several different ways and was not substantially engaged/rebutted/refuted.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The broken record of self justification.

Atheists simply invent false responses when the logic of their position is exposed. Atheism is like Protestantism. Neither has a well established authority system, so both tend towards subjectivism, whereby each atheism becomes his own judge. If a theist says atheism says this, the atheist says, no it doesn't, without any justification. They do this because atheism is just another false and therefore subjectivist world view.

JM

[JohnMartin]

No, it doesn't.

Too stupid for words.

JM

[JohnMartin]

You didn't answer my question. I asked whether I had correctly summarized your argument. All you did was restate your argument in different words.

Your statement -

In your argument, A is a sufficient reason. And you define A as "that whereby a thing is." And you attempt to prove that if we say there is any thing for which A does not exist, then we must affirm a contradiction. Is this a correct summary or your argument?

Yes to A is a sufficient reason. And you define A as "that whereby a thing is."

No to "you attempt to prove that if we say there is any thing for which A does not exist, then we must affirm a contradiction."

The method used in the argument on post 74 moves from making a positive and then double negative definition of reason of be, then showing the double negative definition is also true. Then showing that a denial of the double negative definition of reason of be also leads to a contradiction. Thereby implying a reason of be is required for all things as a consequence of the conclusion that - if a thing is without a reason of be, then contradiction is had.

Your statement that "you attempt to prove that if we say there is any thing for which A does not exist, then we must affirm a contradiction." ignores the application of the double negative definition of reason of be.

Reason of be defined as a positive -
1) Reason of be is "that whereby a thing is"

Reason of be defined again as a positive and also a double negative
2) But "that whereby a thing is" is "that without which the thing is not".

Consequence of denying the equating of the positive and double negative definition of reason of be is a contradiction -
3) For if "that whereby a thing is" is not "that without which the thing is not", then the same is together:
4) That without which a thing is; and that whereby it is.
5) Which is contradictory.

The double negative definition of reason of be in line 2 is validated by evidence of contradiction had.
6) Therefore reason of be is "that without which a thing is not".

Application of the double negative definition of reason of be in line 2. If the definition is denied, contradiction is had -
7) But if a thing is without "that without which it is not", then contradiction is had, because then the same thing together:
8) Is without something;
9) And is not without the same.
10) Therefore if a thing is without a reason of be, then contradiction is had.

Consequently because the denial of the principle of sufficient reason concludes to a contradiction, the affirmation of the principle is true.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

they attempt to explain reality using the principle.

You say so.

[Doug Shaver]

Atheism is like Protestantism.

That's an interesting analogy for you to present. If a Protestant were to tell me, "Catholicism teaches X," and if every Catholic I met said, "No, it doesn't," would you advise me to believe the Protestant or the Catholics?

[Doug Shaver]

Yes to A is a sufficient reason. And you define A as "that whereby a thing is."

And so, if I affirm that there is some thing for which A does not exist, then I am denying the PSR. Is that not correct?

[JohnMartin]

That's an interesting analogy for you to present. If a Protestant were to tell me, "Catholicism teaches X," and if every Catholic I met said, "No, it doesn't," would you advise me to believe the Protestant or the Catholics?

That depends on the competence of every Catholic you met. Many Protestants are incompetent, many Catholics are incompetent, but all atheists are incompetent as atheists, because atheism is totally false. Some Protestants are incompetent because they are incompetent and their belief system is only partially false. Some Catholics are incompetent because they are incompetent, in spite of their faith being completely true.

JM

[JohnMartin]

And so, if I affirm that there is some thing for which A does not exist, then I am denying the PSR. Is that not correct?

Yes, if you deny there is some thing which exists, in which there is not "that whereby a thing is" or there is not "that without which the thing is not", then you are denying the PSR.

Maybe you could just present your argument.

JM

[JonathanL]

Some Catholics are incompetent because they are incompetent, in spite of their faith being completely true.

JM

Yeah, I have a feeling one of those incompetholics frequent this very forum.

[Doug Shaver]

If a Protestant were to tell me, "Catholicism teaches X," and if every Catholic I met said, "No, it doesn't," would you advise me to believe the Protestant or the Catholics?

That depends on the competence of every Catholic you met.

What kind of evidence might tell me that, with respect to Catholic teachings, one Protestant was more competent than several Catholics?