Atheists and Their Fathers

. The concepts of “chain of causality” and “primary cause” are not “wacky ideas,”

No, your solution for primary cause is only one of many wacky ideas, no more special than the others.

Again, as with the case of “existence,” an atheist, to logically win his case, must try to establish that something other than God was, or could have been, the primary cause of creation.

Atheists just get to say "we don't know." They also get to say that your god solution for primary cause doesn't make any sense, since you created attributes excluding the god from the need of a primary cause himself. It is a solution fabricated out of thin-air to address a problem with no evidence showing that it is actually the solution.

Atheists often lack the hubris of the religious, and can actually say "we don't know." You guys have a need to have all the answers.

No, your solution for primary cause is only one of many wacky ideas, no more special than the others.

I’m sorry, but your response is insufficiently detailed from me to know to what “solution” you are referring. You will have to elaborate.

Atheists just get to say "we don't know."

If you say you “don’t know” then you are not an atheist but an agnostic.

They [atheists] also get to say that your god solution for primary cause doesn't make any sense, since you created attributes excluding the god from the need of a primary cause himself.

In my arguments on this thread, I have created no attributes for “God as a primary cause” other than those demanded logically. Please note my statement (following) from post 120:

By the rules of logic, a creator exists before a creation and is, therefore, not bound the nature or limitations of his creation. Therefore, by logic, the Creator of nature (space-time), i.e., God, is not bound by the space-time limits of the universe, i.e., his creation. In other words, he exists outside of the limits of space-time and does not, therefore, logically require a primary cause.

Please cite, if you can, what “attributes” that you think I have “created” for my solution that do not follow logically from the fact that a creator is independent of his creation.

It is a solution[God] fabricated out of thin-air to address a problem with no evidence showing that it is actually the solution.

It is no more a “solution fabricated out of thin air” than is its counter-solution, “there is no god.” Additionally, the “God” solution has as much, or more, evidence supporting it as its counter-solution, “there is no god.”

I note that you have not taken exception to the two positions that establish existence and creation. May I assume from this absence of counter, that you concede the points?

I’m sorry, but your response is insufficiently detailed from me to know to what “solution” you are referring. You will have to elaborate.

Your solution -- "God did it."

If you say you “don’t know” then you are not an atheist but an agnostic

The difference is mainly one of point of view. The agnostic is easily willing to accept various possibilities as possibly valid. The atheist says it's flat-out not valid unless you present evidence.

In my arguments on this thread, I have created no attributes for “God as a primary cause” ... By the rules of logic, a creator exists before a creation and is, therefore, not bound the nature or limitations of his creation.

You just created attributes -- the creator who needs no creator and stands outside his creation not subject to its rules. If I create (build) a house, I'm certainly subject to the rules surrounding that house. I don't get to walk through walls. However, you never answer the question of what created the creator so that he could create his creation.

It is no more a “solution fabricated out of thin air” than is its counter-solution, “there is no god.”

"There is no god" isn't a counter-solution. The counter-solutions are various scientific theories that at least have some evidence behind them. They ignore deity.

Additionally, the “God” solution has as much, or more, evidence supporting it as its counter-solution, “there is no god.”

The only "evidence" is in logical games. There is no objective evidence.

I note that you have not taken exception to the two positions that establish existence and creation.

This has gotten pretty long. Please restate those positions.

If you say you “don’t know” then you are not an atheist but an agnostic

The difference is mainly one of point of view. The agnostic is easily willing to accept various possibilities as possibly valid. The atheist says it's flat-out not valid unless you present evidence.

Need I point out that you have presented no evidence that supports the position, “there is no god?” If you have it, let’s see it.

In my arguments on this thread, I have created no attributes for “God as a primary cause” ... By the rules of logic, a creator exists before a creation and is, therefore, not bound the nature or limitations of his creation.

You just created attributes -- the creator who needs no creator and stands outside his creation not subject to its rules.

Your editing left out an important qualifier in my original statement. Let me restate the entire sentence for clarity:

In my arguments on this thread, I have created no attributes for “God as a primary cause” other than those demanded logically. [emphasis added]

If I create (build) a house, I'm certainly subject to the rules surrounding that house…

On the other hand consider the following limitations on the “house you built” that do not exist on you as its creator. It cannot walk from place to place...it cannot reason or talk…etc., etc… Because your creation has these limitations (and many more) that you do not have, does that mean you did not create it or that you do not exist?

However, you never answer the question of what created the creator so that he could create his creation.

Unfortunately, I have answered this question. The Creator of space-time need not be bound by the limitations of space-time any more than you need to be bound to a lack of self-mobility because your creation, the house (to use your example), is so bound. Therefore, the Creator of space-time has no need of a beginning or end or a “creator” of the Creator. This reasoning is simply a logical extension of the definition of the potential attributes of any “creator.”

It is no more a “solution fabricated out of thin air” than is its counter-solution, “there is no god.”

"There is no god" isn't a counter-solution.

You are incorrect. To the “God question,” there are exactly four solutions or counter-solutions, if you prefer: theism, deism, agnosticism, and atheism. "There is no god" is the definition of one of these counter-solutions, atheism.

The counter-solutions are various scientific theories that at least have some evidence behind them. They ignore deity.

By definition, various scientific theories cannot address the question of “Deity” beyond the implications of evidence. If these theories did so, they would be theological theories, not scientific theories.

The only "evidence" [for the Divine] is in logical games. There is no objective evidence.

I have never maintained in any of my posts that there was objective evidence for the existence of God, only logical implications. However, I have maintained adamantly that there is no objective evidence for the position that “there is no god.” Furthermore, you have not offered any objective evidence for the atheism position in any of your posts.

I note that you have not taken exception to the two positions that establish existence and creation.

This has gotten pretty long. Please restate those positions.

From post 199: Recall that this line of reasoning began all the way back at post 59 with the following:

“I think, therefore I am” [cogito ergo sum] --- Descartes

The universe had a beginning…i.e., a creation moment [The Big Bang Theory]

If there was a creation moment, then the existence of a Creator is established ipso facto.

These two positions establish existence and creation.

Not even an atheist can logically quarrel with “existence” since to do so is clearly counter productive. Logically, if there is existence, then it began at some point by, or with, a “cause.” Furthermore, in logic, “nothing” (as in the lack of facts or actions) or “nothingness” (as an event or agent) is ever causal. Consequently, an atheist, to logically win his case, must try to establish that something other than God was, or could have been, the primary cause of existence. Any attempt to do so takes the argument back to “a moment of creation.”

The only possible logical counter to the other position, “a moment of creation,” is to contend that the Big Bang Theory is in error and that the universe has “always existed” and therefore has no cause. Since physical evidence and mathematics strongly support the Big Bang Theory, one would have to come up with equally strong evidence or counter explanations of current evidence to refute it. While such is certainly possible, as some have tried, it has not yet been widely accepted because of intractable discrepancies that keep cropping up in the counter-explanations. Again, as with the case of “existence,” an atheist, to logically win his case, must try to establish that something other than God was, or could have been, the primary cause of creation.

Only an agnostic can escape the burden of logic to establish his position.

After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children.

I am an atheist. My father was one of the most sincerely devout individuals I have ever met. At his funeral the priest talked about how great it was to have such a true believer in the congregation.

I did not have a defective relationship with my father.

My father was not dead when I became an atheist. He was not abusive or weak and did not abandon us.

The reasons I became an atheist had to do with what I perceived as being the truth, and were not in any way a reaction against my father.

Maybe Dr. Vitz's theory only works with his selected sample.

Sorry, I accidentally posted this to myself rather than you.

If you say you “don’t know” then you are not an atheist but an agnostic

The difference is mainly one of point of view. The agnostic is easily willing to accept various possibilities as possibly valid. The atheist says it's flat-out not valid unless you present evidence.

Need I point out that you have presented no evidence that supports the position, “there is no god?” If you have it, let’s see it.

In my arguments on this thread, I have created no attributes for “God as a primary cause” ... By the rules of logic, a creator exists before a creation and is, therefore, not bound the nature or limitations of his creation.

You just created attributes -- the creator who needs no creator and stands outside his creation not subject to its rules.

Your editing left out an important qualifier in my original statement. Let me restate the entire sentence for clarity:

In my arguments on this thread, I have created no attributes for “God as a primary cause” other than those demanded logically. [emphasis added]

If I create (build) a house, I'm certainly subject to the rules surrounding that house…

On the other hand consider the following limitations on the “house you built” that do not exist on you as its creator. It cannot walk from place to place...it cannot reason or talk…etc., etc… Because your creation has these limitations (and many more) that you do not have, does that mean you did not create it or that you do not exist?

However, you never answer the question of what created the creator so that he could create his creation.

Unfortunately, I have answered this question. The Creator of space-time need not be bound by the limitations of space-time any more than you need to be bound to a lack of self-mobility because your creation, the house (to use your example), is so bound. Therefore, the Creator of space-time has no need of a beginning or end or a “creator” of the Creator. This reasoning is simply a logical extension of the definition of the potential attributes of any “creator.”

It is no more a “solution fabricated out of thin air” than is its counter-solution, “there is no god.”

"There is no god" isn't a counter-solution.

You are incorrect. To the “God question,” there are exactly four solutions or counter-solutions, if you prefer: theism, deism, agnosticism, and atheism. "There is no god" is the definition of one of these counter-solutions, atheism.

The counter-solutions are various scientific theories that at least have some evidence behind them. They ignore deity.

By definition, various scientific theories cannot address the question of “Deity” beyond the implications of evidence. If these theories did so, they would be theological theories, not scientific theories.

The only "evidence" [for the Divine] is in logical games. There is no objective evidence.

I have never maintained in any of my posts that there was objective evidence for the existence of God, only logical implications. However, I have maintained adamantly that there is no objective evidence for the position that “there is no god.” Furthermore, you have not offered any objective evidence for the atheism position in any of your posts.

I note that you have not taken exception to the two positions that establish existence and creation.

This has gotten pretty long. Please restate those positions.

From post 199: Recall that this line of reasoning began all the way back at post 59 with the following:

“I think, therefore I am” [cogito ergo sum] --- Descartes

The universe had a beginning…i.e., a creation moment [The Big Bang Theory]

If there was a creation moment, then the existence of a Creator is established ipso facto.

These two positions establish existence and creation.

Not even an atheist can logically quarrel with “existence” since to do so is clearly counter productive. Logically, if there is existence, then it began at some point by, or with, a “cause.” Furthermore, in logic, “nothing” (as in the lack of facts or actions) or “nothingness” (as an event or agent) is ever causal. Consequently, an atheist, to logically win his case, must try to establish that something other than God was, or could have been, the primary cause of existence. Any attempt to do so takes the argument back to “a moment of creation.”

The only possible logical counter to the other position, “a moment of creation,” is to contend that the Big Bang Theory is in error and that the universe has “always existed” and therefore has no cause. Since physical evidence and mathematics strongly support the Big Bang Theory, one would have to come up with equally strong evidence or counter explanations of current evidence to refute it. While such is certainly possible, as some have tried, it has not yet been widely accepted because of intractable discrepancies that keep cropping up in the counter-explanations. Again, as with the case of “existence,” an atheist, to logically win his case, must try to establish that something other than God was, or could have been, the primary cause of creation.

Only an agnostic can escape the burden of logic to establish his position.

Please note the word (“believes”) in the definition I have emphasized. Belief and faith are synonymous terms. Consequently, your statement is erroneous.

A synonym doesn't always have the same meaning. "Gradation" and "tread" are synonyms to the word "Stair", yet you don't tell people that you just walked up the gradation in your apartment because the term is inappropriate and actually has a different meaning. Likewise, belief and faith may be synonymous but are not identical. Again, you are incorrect.

No I am not. In logic there is the “law of the excluded middle,”

So , the way you debate is to ignore my previous statement completely and continue to argue about something that I've already told you has no context to what I said. i.e., something cannot simultaneously exist and not exist, or simultaneously possess characteristics that are mutually exclusive. There is nothing mutually exclusive between an agnostic and a theist/atheist. Prove me wrong. The terms theist, deist, agnostic or atheist are, by definition, all mutually exclusive. Atheist and theist are mutually exclusive. An agnostic is not mutually exclusive with atheist or theist definitions Lets spell this out

A = Atheist

B = Theist

C = Agnostic

B ~A

A ~B

A v C

B v C

Consequently, by the rules of logic, one is a theist, deist, agnostic or atheist not any combination of these terms.

You haven't established that they are mutually exclusive. I have already illustrated my example. Show me in your definition that you posted how an agnotic can not be a theist or atheist.

On the contrary, I don’t think I missed your point at all. Rather, your statement is core of the disagreement attributed to Socrates and Protagoras.

If you told me that you just bought a car because you liked the sporty look ( a subjective opinion), and I told you that your purchase was illogical because its based on a subjective opinion, would that change the fact that you purchased a car using your own perceptions? This is the argument you are trying to make to me on my definition of denial.

Me: Denial is not accepting something to be true, and for different people the conditions for acceptance of truth can be limited or rigorous.

You:This statement is one of “relativism.” In a logical debate, it has no meaning.

Me:Whether their perception of truth is correct or not is inconsequential to the fact that people make denials based on their perceptions.

You:Your use of the word “perceptions” is nothing more than a substitution for the phrase “subjective opinion” in the argument I quoted.

And now my reply: Understand I am not saying that all truth is relative. I am stating that people make decisions based on their perceptions. This is not a proposition that assumes relativism to be true or false. People are not computers, they each have their own methodologies, as flawed as some may be, for arriving at truth. Logic is not subjective, but statements about subjective decisions can be expressed in logic. For example: If Grandma feels danger aproaching then she hides in the closet. "Feels" is a subjective word to describe a perception within Granny's mind but her reaction is objective andthis statement can be expressed within the confides of logic. Denying something is also identifiable and measurable, and can be expressed logically.

Need I point out that you have presented no evidence that supports the position, “there is no god?”

Have I ever taken that positive position?

Your editing left out an important qualifier in my original statement. Let me restate the entire sentence for clarity:

Same thing, only you admit you put those attributes there so that the statement would be logically coherent within its own invented premises.

Therefore, the Creator of space-time has no need of a beginning or end or a “creator” of the Creator.

So you set an attribute as timeless. Any other explanation for the universe can also set an attribute of timelessness, the universe itself could be timeless, or time could have been something that came into existence at some point. Your explanation is no better.

"There is no god" is the definition of one of these counter-solutions, atheism.

Not by one of the definitions you quoted. BTW, you do realize that theism includes lots of solutions that are counter to yours and equally valid/invalid.

Furthermore, you have not offered any objective evidence for the atheism position in any of your posts.

It needs none. Prove it, or we assume your assertion is false. Logical gymnastics do not apply.

From post 199: Recall that this line of reasoning began all the way back at post 59 with the following:

Ah, that one. I've already answered: we don't know the answer positively, and your god answer is one of many amusing theories, along with the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHH).

It appears that we we are having difficulty reaching an agreement on the terms, theist, agnostic, deist and, in particular, atheist. Clarity of terms is essential and without such, any logical debate is futile. Indeed, without such an agreement, any attempted debate merely degenerates into rhetoric.

Consequently, I propose that what you are calling a "soft atheist" be considered (by your choice), for debate purposes, either, an agnostic (one who professes not to know if there is a god or not) or an atheist in the fullest sense (one who denies there is a god). Further, I propose that what you are calling "denial of the Deity" be considered the same as a positive affirmation that "there is no god," for debate purposes.

Additionally, I propose that you either accept the proposition of "existence," (as presented in posts 59 and 199) or deny it and, if so, logically support your denial.

Furthermore, I propose that you either accept the proposition of "a moment of creation," (as presented in posts 59 and 199) or deny it and, if so, logically support your denial. If we can reach agreement on the terms of debate, I think we can have fruitful and, potentially entertaining, debate. However, absent such agreement, I suggest we discontinue the exchange.

Your choice?

"After studying the lives of more than a dozen of the world's most influential atheists, Dr. Vitz discovered that they all had one thing in common: defective relationships with their fathers. The relationship was defective because the father was either dead, abusive, weak, or had abandoned the children. When he studied the lives of influential theists during those same historical time periods, he found they enjoyed a strong, loving relationship with a father (or a father substitute if the father was dead)."

People that believe in God (Judeo Christian), live happier lives. This same group that prays for others that are ill often experience a faster recovery time.

Just the other week, my Mom told me about a friend of theirs. His name is Fred. Fred and his wife have a life you might be tempted to envy. Money is not an issue. Their kids are grown and turned out well. Their grandchildren are healthy and thriving etc.. Fred has had non Hodgkin's Lymphoma - slightly aggressive for over SEVEN years! They've tried ALL the experimental drugs - some with little or no success.

I say this joyfully - IT'S GONE! He was feeling better and didn't wish to take the latest experimental drug. He said he felt great. They examined him and they were SHOCKED. His doctor couldn't believe that it was completely GONE! It wasn't years of drugs. The drug he was last on showed no improvement.

Know what Fred's answer to this is - GOD! MANY churches have been praying for him for YEARS - SEVEN YEARS!! God gave them the answer they craved. God healed him.

Fred never went to these "faith healers" or any of the other crazy stuff that goes on. He went about his life as best he could and all who knew him PRAYED to the Judeo Christian God to heal him. It finally happened!

I genuinely feel sorry for atheists. How much joy and hope they miss out on - BY CHOICE. They have nothing to look forward to but the here and now. I have MUCH to look forward too! All my beloved relatives, friends and even my beloved pets - I will see someday and be with for eternity.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
Whether God Exists?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.