Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I decided that arguing over the details of atheist denominations wasn’t quite my thing but prior to withdrawal I did some research into strong atheism and to revisit  disproofs of Gods of the strong atheists. I alighted on the Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy and reading the article on Atheism found myself commenting internally on what it had to say and thought this would be more useful than the Gish galloping, mobbing of the ‘’debate’’ on what is atheism on the searching for God thread.
I will be concentrating on commenting on the article saying what I think is wrong with it rather than commenting on peoples posts so misrepresentation or plausible deniability won’t rear their ugly head.
Here is the link to the original article
https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/#SH3a


There is the introduction with a brief definition of the term atheist. It then speculates a large number of atheists in the world and then a list of things which make polling hard…..
The article goes on to say that atheists mostly have considered the most reasonable conclusions are obtained by evidence to which I would add mostly empirical evidence.
I wondered therefore about the actual competence of atheism (as a state some are in )to handle any evidence that isn’t empirical despite demands for ‘’any evidence at all’’
Crucially for the atheist ‘’the evidence for the existence of God is too weak or that the arguments for God not existing are more compelling.’’
The article then lists the categories of the arguments :
ontological,
teleological,
cosmological,
miracles,
 prudential

Interestingly The Cosmological argument is not linked to anywhere in the encyclopedia could this be because of the lack of interest by atheists? Certainly the atheists on this forum seemed only, until recently, to have a vague understanding of the kalam cosmological theory and the cosmological theory as mediated through Dawkins and when Degrasse Tyson announce the simulated universe theory, I think he and others were surprised when told of the similarities between his theory and centuries old theology. Also missing of course, and a glaring omission at that, is the moral argument

We are then told

there are atheist disproofs involving conceptual problems with several properties that are essential to any being worthy of the title “God.”

This I found most interesting. Atheists presenting the qualifications for the worthiness of God. I find this laughable and intriguing at the same time ‘’I’ll tell you when you can call yourself God, sonny, and not before.’’

Inductive arguments are listed
God’s non-existence is analogous to the non-existence of Santa Claus.(horses laugh argument)
  The existence of widespread human and non-human suffering is incompatible with an all powerful, all knowing, all good being.(Is that actually an atheist argument as well as having the problem of defining good?)
Discoveries about the origins and nature of the universe, and about the evolution of life on Earth make the God hypothesis an unlikely explanation.( scientism?) 
Widespread non-belief (argumentum ad populum)
the lack of compelling evidence show that a God who seeks belief in humans does not exist.
 Broad considerations from science that support naturalism, or the view that all and (Naturalism)only physical entities and causes exist,(Physicalism)Here’s the fascinating quote.

(These) have also led many to the atheism conclusion.

I think it odd that the amount of unbelief should be held as evidence of God not existing by some but try using the number of believers as evidence for God.

[Stranger]

I decided that arguing over the details of atheist denominations wasn’t quite my thing but prior to withdrawal...

Given your dismal performance, probably running away was your best option. 

I did some research into strong atheism...

Why? Nobody here is advocating strong atheism. I guess if you want to waste your time, that's up to you. 

The rest is necessarily one giant straw man for the above reason. I note, however, that you're still telling blatant lies about people here and others. You just can't help yourself, can you?

Certainly the atheists on this forum seemed only, until recently, to have a vague understanding of the kalam cosmological theory...

Two big fat whoppers here: it's not a theory, it's car crash of an attempt at a deduction, and the idea that people here had no more than a "vague understanding" until recently, is absurd.

...Tyson announce the simulated universe theory, I think he and others were surprised when told of the similarities between his theory and centuries old theology.

Surprised? Surprised that somebody could be so mindlessly stupid as to think it was anything remotely like theism.

If you want to do a pointless exercise in demolishing the straw man of strong atheism and attacking arguments that people have never made here*, then go right ahead, but if you think you can sit on this thread and not have your blatant lies called out, then think again.

* Prize example: "I think it odd that the amount of unbelief should be held as evidence of God not existing..." Vlad playing with straw!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given your dismal performance, probably running away was your best option. 

Why? Nobody here is advocating strong atheism. I guess if you want to waste your time, that's up to you. 

The rest is necessarily one giant straw man for the above reason. I note, however, that you're still telling blatant lies about people here and others. You just can't help yourself, can you?

Two big fat whoppers here: it's not a theory, it's car crash of an attempt at a deduction, and the idea that people here had no more than a "vague understanding" until recently, is absurd.

Surprised? Surprised that somebody could be so mindlessly stupid as to think it was anything remotely like theism.

If you want to do a pointless exercise in demolishing the straw man of strong atheism and attacking arguments that people have never made here*, then go right ahead, but if you think you can sit on this thread and not have your blatant lies called out, then think again.

* Prize example: "I think it odd that the amount of unbelief should be held as evidence of God not existing..." Vlad playing with straw!

Sorry but it looks like the article wasn't aware there are no strong atheists on the religionethics message board.

If you think I have got an argument wrong please feel free to state what you see as the proper version.

[Stranger]

Sorry but it looks like the article wasn't aware there are no strong atheists on the religionethics message board.

So why raise their arguments here? Apart from to sneak in some lies about what people here (that we didn't understand Kalam until recently, for example), that is.

If you think I have got an argument wrong please feel free to state what you see as the proper version.

If you want to do some pointless intellectual masturbation and just stick to demolishing arguments that nobody here has made, go right ahead, just leave out your own lies and unjustified speculations about other atheist thinkers and people here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So why raise their arguments here? Apart from to sneak in some lies about what people here (that we didn't understand Kalam until recently, for example), that is.

If you want to do some pointless intellectual masturbation and just stick to demolishing arguments that nobody here has made, go right ahead, just leave out your own lies and unjustified speculations about other atheist thinkers and people here.

I would say that the only Cosmological theory doing the rounds among New atheists and others on the web was Dawkins version. That went unchallenged as far as I recall. It is possible that some were aware of the Kalam and just didn't bring it up.

The IEP article gets to soft atheists, Lack of belief atheists and atheists by default in due course so don't feel your being left out

Thanks for dropping in.

[Stranger]

I would say that the only Cosmological theory doing the rounds among New atheists and others on the web was Dawkins version. That went unchallenged as far as I recall.

No idea what you even mean. What Dawkins argument?

It is possible that some were aware of the Kalam and just didn't bring it up.

Kalam was extensively discussed here when Alien/Alan brought it up ages ago. Why would you expect atheists to bring up a crap argument for God, anyway? And, of course, it was even more extensively discussed elsewhere.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The article goes on to say that atheists mostly have considered the most reasonable conclusions are obtained by evidence to which I would add mostly empirical evidence.

What other type of evidence do you think there is?

How would you know that it was evidence at all?

How could non-empirical “evidence” (whatever it might be) be examined, tested and verified?

Good luck with it. 

[Outrider]

I decided that arguing over the details of atheist denominations wasn’t quite my thing but prior to withdrawal I did some research into strong atheism and to revisit  disproofs of Gods of the strong atheists. I alighted on the Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy and reading the article on Atheism found myself commenting internally on what it had to say and thought this would be more useful than the Gish galloping, mobbing of the ‘’debate’’ on what is atheism on the searching for God thread.
I will be concentrating on commenting on the article saying what I think is wrong with it rather than commenting on peoples posts so misrepresentation or plausible deniability won’t rear their ugly head.
Here is the link to the original article
https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/#SH3a

There is the introduction with a brief definition of the term atheist.

As far as citable authorities go, its choice of definition of 'atheist' isn't a great start, is it, given what we've covered here and we're just enthusiastic amateurs.

I wondered therefore about the actual competence of atheism (as a state some are in )to handle any evidence that isn’t empirical despite demands for ‘’any evidence at all’’

The article doesn't even seem to imply a basis for this 'demand', but as you appear to agree that it's somehow a limitation - given the lack of any alternative methodology being suggested, what are the other options? We're covering the attempts at formulating a justification from logic below, what other sorts of 'evidence' are there?

Crucially for the atheist ‘’the evidence for the existence of God is too weak or that the arguments for God not existing are more compelling.’’

It's not that the arguments for gods not existing are more compelling, it's the arguments for a gods aren't sufficient to warrant a rebuttal.

The article then lists the categories of the arguments :
ontological,
teleological,
cosmological,
miracles,
 prudential

Interestingly The Cosmological argument is not linked to anywhere in the encyclopedia could this be because of the lack of interest by atheists?

I think it's an errant Oxford comma in the list; looking at the article they seem to categorise it as a subset of the teleological argument.

Certainly the atheists on this forum seemed only, until recently, to have a vague understanding of the kalam cosmological theory and the cosmological theory as mediated through Dawkins and when Degrasse Tyson announce the simulated universe theory, I think he and others were surprised when told of the similarities between his theory and centuries old theology.

I think the majority of the discussion was around William Lane Craig's attempts to make the Cosmological Argument the new 'fetch' - it didn't happen.

Also missing of course, and a glaring omission at that, is the moral argument.

Which they're presumably considering a version of the ontological argument.

This I found most interesting. Atheists presenting the qualifications for the worthiness of God. I find this laughable and intriguing at the same time ‘’I’ll tell you when you can call yourself God, sonny, and not before.’’

I have literally no idea where in the article you're finding that interpretation.

Inductive arguments are listed
God’s non-existence is analogous to the non-existence of Santa Claus.(horses laugh argument)

And yet the reference that you cited, presumably as you feel it has some degree of authority, saw sufficient to list that out, but chooses not to give your cosmological special pleading an entry, and doesn't think the argument from morality merits a mention?

The existence of widespread human and non-human suffering is incompatible with an all powerful, all knowing, all good being.(Is that actually an atheist argument as well as having the problem of defining good?)

Theodicy appears to have its own entry, so someone thinks it merits consideration.

Discoveries about the origins and nature of the universe, and about the evolution of life on Earth make the God hypothesis an unlikely explanation.( scientism?)

They're depicted as a counter to the intelligent design argument, showing that the existence of existence isn't only explicable by the intervention of a supernatural intelligence.
 

Widespread non-belief (argumentum ad populum)

The equally widespread presence of various beliefs could therefore just as easily be cited as a demonstration of Islam, Christianity or Trumpism - I've not seen anyone offer this argument anywhere in favour of atheism, and damned few in favour of theism, let alone any one specific religious outlook.

the lack of compelling evidence show that a God who seeks belief in humans does not exist.

Could be in trouble if the Scots get rid of the 'Not Proven' verdict...

Broad considerations from science that support naturalism, or the view that all and (Naturalism)only physical entities and causes exist,(Physicalism)Here’s the fascinating quote. I think it odd that the amount of unbelief should be held as evidence of God not existing by some but try using the number of believers as evidence for God.

Quite. Possibly why it appears so rare on either side.

Sorry but it looks like the article wasn't aware there are no strong atheists on the religionethics message board.

It's rather more of a concern that it doesn't appear to have kept up with the spread of atheistic beliefs - the so called 'negative' atheists are considered as an anomoly in the article, but in my experience represent the majority of the atheists making arguments - whether that disguises a broader swathe of 'positive' atheists who aren't talking about it is possible, but to not even address that disparity suggests that perhaps this isn't updated particularly frequently.

I would say that the only Cosmological theory doing the rounds among New atheists and others on the web was Dawkins version. That went unchallenged as far as I recall. It is possible that some were aware of the Kalam and just didn't bring it up.

As I said above, the person I'd most associate with trying to bring the Cosmological argument to prominence has been William Lane Craig for about the last ten to fifteen years; I don't recall Professor Dawkins being particular involved with the idea, I'm sure he's addressed it at some point.

The IEP article gets to soft atheists, Lack of belief atheists and atheists by default in due course so don't feel your being left out

Which seems odd given that they're the people making the running.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea what you even mean. What Dawkins argument?

Kalam was extensively discussed here when Alien/Alan brought it up ages ago. Why would you expect atheists to bring up a crap argument for God, anyway? And, of course, it was even more extensively discussed elsewhere.

Dawkins critiqued Aquinas' arguments in ''The God Delusion'' including the cosmological arguments he misunderstood one of the arguments leading him to propose that because everything needed a cause, God needed a cause. That was not Aquinas' argument.
 
Dawkins omitted the argument from contingency. These omissions might be excusable in the layman, even theists would have believed this was the argument, bearing out Nearly Sane's point that few are believers because of cosmological arguments.....but not so excusable in a scientist. One suspects that if Dawkins wasn't sloppy here he wasn't prepared to advertise the argument from contingency because of it's potential persuasive power.

Dawkins further compounded his mistake by saying in non sequitur that Aquinas argument did not give an all loving God etc. It wasn't meant to and didn't need to since the God and attributes of the necessary being established by the cosmological argument in no ways constitute any form of atheism.

By now we can see that Dawkins has form for attacking arguments his opponent hasn't made. There must be a term for that.

Apparently when Dawkins specifically addressed the Kalam Cosmological argument he made the same error by adding points to the argument and then he refuted his own points!

The same or similar error is made by those who think the main properties of any simulated universe creator are not the same or similar to those of theistic creators (gods).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Continuing  a review of the internet encyclopedia of philosophy article on atheism……..Section 1. What is Atheism?

Atheism is the view that there is no God.

Well lookie here.

There have been many thinkers in history who have lacked a belief in God.  Some ancient Greek philosophers, such as Epicurus, sought natural explanations for natural phenomena.

So was Epicurus an atheist because he was philosophically naturalist or vice versa. His default position is going to be Naturalism, that is going to be the ‘’status quo’’ he is insisting on. Naturalistic critiques of theism are going to involve, for the naturalist, revolving round the ability or lack of ability to demonstrate God as ‘’one more object or thing’’

It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God.  Anthony Flew (1984) called this positive atheism, whereas to lack a belief that God or gods exist is to be a negative atheist.

so whereas the naturalism has naturalism as the default position negative atheism of the Flew variety has empiricism as the default position

So negative atheism would include someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter

Ah so this is the test then a negative atheist must pass. Have you? Do you pass the test or are you a closet positive atheist?  it seems to me that the negative atheist must repudiate positive atheist claims and arguments entirely and never had harboured them. We should expect therefore equal repudiation of and repentance from strong atheist arguments as well as theism. But of course where is all this repudiation and repentence? Certainly not in the pages of Religionethics.

[Nearly Sane]

Dawkins critiqued Aquinas' arguments in ''The God Delusion'' including the cosmological arguments he misunderstood one of the arguments leading him to propose that because everything needed a cause, God needed a cause. That was not Aquinas' argument.
 
Dawkins omitted the argument from contingency. These omissions might be excusable in the layman, even theists would have believed this was the argument, bearing out Nearly Sane's point that few are believers because of cosmological arguments.....but not so excusable in a scientist. One suspects that if Dawkins wasn't sloppy here he wasn't prepared to advertise the argument from contingency because of it's potential persuasive power.

Dawkins further compounded his mistake by saying in non sequitur that Aquinas argument did not give an all loving God etc. It wasn't meant to and didn't need to since the God and attributes of the necessary being established by the cosmological argument in no ways constitute any form of atheism.

By now we can see that Dawkins has form for attacking arguments his opponent hasn't made. There must be a term for that.

Apparently when Dawkins specifically addressed the Kalam Cosmological argument he made the same error by adding points to the argument and then he refuted his own points!

The same or similar error is made by those who think the main properties of any simulated universe creator are not the same or similar to those of theistic creators (gods).

Just to point out I didn't say that 'few are believers because of cosmological arguments' - I said that I've never encountered any theist who believes because of any of these type of arguments, not just the cosmological one.

[Outrider]

Continuing  a review of the internet encyclopedia of philosophy article on atheism……..Section 1. What is Atheism? Well lookie here.

Look at that, someone else that doesn't reflect the actual position of atheists, who would have thought?

So was Epicurus an atheist because he was philosophically naturalist or vice versa.

Maybe. Or maybe he came to the positions independently, and found that they were complementary, and saw that as a validation of his thought processes.

Ah so this is the test then a negative atheist must pass. Have you?

Nobody told me there would be a test. I think it's more like a 'protected term' situation - if you want to be a 'positive atheist' you have to pass a test, like a dietician, and 'negative atheists' are more like nutritionalists.

Do you pass the test or are you a closet positive atheist?

No, and no.

it seems to me that the negative atheist must repudiate positive atheist claims and arguments entirely and never had harboured them.

You mean like agnostics of either stripe who, on encountering a claim of 'there is no god' ask on what basis that claim is being made? You mean like that?

We should expect therefore equal repudiation of and repentance from strong atheist arguments as well as theism.

If you can point one out I'll address it. I think it's hiding behind the snipe.

But of course where is all this repudiation and repentence? Certainly not in the pages of Religionethics.

To borrow a phrase from BBC football commentary, you can only play what's in front of you.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to point out I didn't say that 'few are believers because of cosmological arguments' - I said that I've never encountered any theist who believes because of any of these type of arguments, not just the cosmological one.

Many thanks for pointing that out and apologies for mistaking your experience for your views here.

[Stranger]

Dawkins critiqued Aquinas' arguments in ''The God Delusion'' including the cosmological arguments he misunderstood one of the arguments leading him to propose that because everything needed a cause, God needed a cause. That was not Aquinas' argument.
 
Dawkins omitted the argument from contingency. These omissions might be excusable in the layman, even theists would have believed this was the argument, bearing out Nearly Sane's point that few are believers because of cosmological arguments.....but not so excusable in a scientist. One suspects that if Dawkins wasn't sloppy here he wasn't prepared to advertise the argument from contingency because of it's potential persuasive power.

Dawkins further compounded his mistake by saying in non sequitur that Aquinas argument did not give an all loving God etc. It wasn't meant to and didn't need to since the God and attributes of the necessary being established by the cosmological argument in no ways constitute any form of atheism.

By now we can see that Dawkins has form for attacking arguments his opponent hasn't made. There must be a term for that.

Apparently when Dawkins specifically addressed the Kalam Cosmological argument he made the same error by adding points to the argument and then he refuted his own points!

Reference...? Actual quotes from the book? Excuse me if I don't just take your word for it.

It's been a long time since I read it, I don't recall these things but that doesn't mean that he didn't make those mistakes. The fact is that I really can't be arsed to search through it to check for myself, especially as I have a paper copy not a searchable e-book. It's up to you to provide supporting evidence if you can be bothered.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter anyway. It doesn't support your contention that "...the only Cosmological theory doing the rounds among New atheists and others on the web was Dawkins version. That went unchallenged as far as I recall."

This appears to be just part of your fantasy that all atheists follow Dawkins' ideas as if they were theists following a holy book. It just isn't like that. I didn't think much of The God Delusion at the time, and said so. Dawkins is excellent when he's explaining evolution but he's often not so impressive in the atheist-theist debates.

The same or similar error is made by those who think the main properties of any simulated universe creator are not the same or similar to those of theistic creators (gods).

You try to tell us about philosophy and you don't even get the basic logic of necessity and sufficiency. Hilarious!

[Stranger]

Continuing  a review of the internet encyclopedia of philosophy article on atheism……..Section 1. What is Atheism?

Other definitions are available as, they say. This is one reason why philosophy is often useless. Ask three philosophers to define something and you may well get four or five answers. People believe what they believe, not what one website says. Agnostic atheism is a widely held position that is well documented. I think I've only encountered one strong atheist on line and he's a Hindu too.

Ah so this is the test then a negative atheist must pass. Have you?

What test?

it seems to me that the negative atheist must repudiate positive atheist claims and arguments entirely and never had harboured them.

I don't think I've ever seen an argument for positive atheism in the general sense. How would you even go about arguing that every possible concept of god was false?

[Enki]

Vlad,

All comments and questions here relate to your post 9

1) Well lookie here. The same encyclopedia says this:

The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.

which is much closer to my own view that I have no belief in any god whilst not ruling out the possibility of the existence of god rather than the assertive

Atheism is the view that there is no God.

2) You said:

so whereas the naturalism has naturalism as the default position negative atheism of the Flew variety has empiricism as the default position

I can't find any reference in this article to Flew's position of negative atheism having empiricism as the default position. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

3)You quoted the encycopedia as saying:

So negative atheism would include someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter

and then suggested it is a test that negative atheists must pass. Cherry picking at its worst. Here is the full quote:

So negative atheism would includes someone who has never reflected on the question of whether or not God exists and has no opinion about the matter and someone who had thought about the matter a great deal and has concluded either that she has insufficient evidence to decide the question, or that the question cannot be resolved in principle.

I am probably much closer to the second alternative. As to the idea of some sort of spurious test, get lost!

If someone was to start asserting positive statements from the standpoint of a strong atheist, then they would be falling into the same silly trap that Alan falls into with his own baseless assertions. Perhaps you could point out one or more on these pages so that I might challenge it as I have done with Alan's monotonous assertive dirges?

[Nearly Sane]

...

You try to tell us about philosophy and you don't even get the basic logic of necessity and sufficiency. Hilarious!

Vlad,  just to follow on from this point of Stranger's, could you outline what you see as the necessary, and the sufficient conditions for something being regarded by you as a 'god'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Reference...? Actual quotes from the book? Excuse me if I don't just take your word for it.

Source: p 100-101, The God Delusion, By Richard Dawkins

There is an itemised version here

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/17683/what-does-dawkins-suggest-is-the-main-flaw-in-these-three-arguments-from-aquinas

You will see Dawkins omits the argument from contingency because it works against his conclusion that Aquinas merely wants to demonstrate a temporal terminator of a heirarchy of dependence in time. The argument is not dependent on time but proposes two modes of being the necessary following logically from heirarchies of dependency. Dawkins omits this and comes out with a simplistic and incorrect view of Aquinas, an ignorance that was common amongst laypeople and non philosophically oriented academics IMHO. The jury I think is out whether Dawkins did it deliberately but many atheists and theists have passed a guilty verdict on Dawkins for his argument here

You try to tell us about philosophy and you don't even get the basic logic of necessity and sufficiency. Hilarious!

Theological philosophy of couyrse merely sets out to demonstrate God as the sufficient reason for what people would term ''the natural universe'' and I would go further to say that they are also not so hung up about the philosophical ''God of the omnis''.
Having said that the argument from contingency does give rise to a singular entity necessary for the natural universe and nature. There must also be a reason for why there is something rather than nothing and this must necessarilyhave permanently existed since nothing comes from nothing. It did not emerge It did not and has not failed to exist since the universe is here. And that all provides sufficient reason for the universe.

The only reason to think God is not necessary then is God himself who is the only one who could switch himself off.

I don't see how that helps atheism in anyway.

[Outrider]

There must also be a reason for why there is something rather than nothing

No.

and this must necessarilyhave permanently existed since nothing comes from nothing.

No.

It did not emerge It did not and has not failed to exist since the universe is here.

No.

And that all provides sufficient reason for the universe.

Therefore, no.

The only reason to think God is not necessary then is God himself who is the only one who could switch himself off.

Begging the question, much?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,  just to follow on from this point of Stranger's, could you outline what you see as the necessary, and the sufficient conditions for something being regarded by you as a 'god'?

What I see as the necessary is that singular entity on which all heirarchies of dependence are based. I'm not so hung up on whether that entity could have failed to exist, it didn't, it has always existed since nothing can come from nothing and thence the only reason for it failing to exist would be through it's own volition.

What is necessary to be regarded as a God by me.

Something which created the Universe of it's own volition and was entirely independent (for it's own existence) from it's creation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Continuing a look at the Internet encyclopedia of philosophy entry on Atheism
Single Property Disproofs
 

Deductive disproofs have typically focused on logical inconsistencies to be found either within a single property or between multiple properties.  Philosophers have struggled to work out the details of what it would be to be omnipotent, for instance.  It has come to be widely accepted that a being cannot be omnipotent where omnipotence simply means to power to do anything including the logically impossible.  This definition of the term suffers from the stone paradox.  An omnipotent being would either be capable of creating a rock that he cannot lift, or he is incapable.  If he is incapable, then there is something he cannot do, and therefore he does not have the power to do anything.  If he can create such a rock, then again there is something that he cannot do, namely lift the rock he just created.  So paradoxically, having the ability to do anything would appear to entail being unable to do some things.  As a result, many theists and atheists have agreed that a being could not have that property.

I think that’s fair, that most atheists do not expect God to do impossible things….I wonder about(some) theists on this,

It has also been argued that omniscience is impossible, and that the most knowledge that can possibly be had is not enough to be fitting of God.  One of the central problems has been that God cannot have knowledge of indexical claims such as, “I am here now.”  It has also been argued that God cannot know future free choices, or God cannot know future contingent propositions, or that Cantor’s and Gödel proofs imply that the notion of a set of all truths cannot be made coherent.).
The logical coherence of eternality, personhood, moral perfection, causal agency, and many others have been challenged in the deductive atheology literature.

I think this adds up to the God of the omnis which makes me wonder whether the Hebrew ‘’All powerful’’ is the absolute equivalent of the Greek Philosophical ‘’Omnipotent’’ whether the philosophically platonic moral perfection is the absolute equivalent of the term Holy.
Quotes from the IEP entry on Atheism.

[Stranger]

Source: p 100-101, The God Delusion, By Richard Dawkins

Doesn't correspond to my edition.

There is an itemised version here

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/17683/what-does-dawkins-suggest-is-the-main-flaw-in-these-three-arguments-from-aquinas

You will see Dawkins omits the argument from contingency because it works against his conclusion that Aquinas merely wants to demonstrate a temporal terminator of a heirarchy of dependence in time.

Taking this source at face value, again, I don't see why it matters. It's not a brilliant book and I don't think he was even trying to be compressive. As I said before: it doesn't support your contention that "...the only Cosmological theory doing the rounds among New atheists and others on the web was Dawkins version. That went unchallenged as far as I recall."

Theological philosophy of couyrse merely sets out to demonstrate God as the sufficient reason for what people would term ''the natural universe''...

Not the subject at all. I was referring to the absurdity of equating a simulated universe to theism and your apparent inability to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions to be classed as a god or gods.

Having said that the argument from contingency does give rise to a singular entity necessary for the natural universe and nature.

The argument is a crock of shit, for reasons that have been explained to you. It gives rise to nothing but hilarity.

There must also be a reason for why there is something rather than nothing and this must necessarilyhave permanently existed since nothing comes from nothing.

Now who's using temporal thinking? The space-time itself doesn't 'come from nothing' and yet may well be finite in the past.

[Stranger]

Continuing a look at the Internet encyclopedia of philosophy entry on Atheism
Single Property Disproofs

Why is this relevant since nobody here is trying to disprove god in any general sense? It's a bit like me posting something on here against young earth creationism when nobody is arguing for it.

[Sebastian Toe]

Something which created the Universe of it's own volition and was entirely independent (for it's own existence) from it's creation.

Created it from what?

[Stranger]

What I see as the necessary is that singular entity on which all heirarchies of dependence are based. I'm not so hung up on whether that entity could have failed to exist, it didn't, it has always existed since nothing can come from nothing and thence the only reason for it failing to exist would be through it's own volition.

What is necessary to be regarded as a God by me.

Something which created the Universe of it's own volition and was entirely independent (for it's own existence) from it's creation.

Your first paragraph contradicts the third. And what about all the gods that don't create the universe? Plenty to choose from: Godchecker.