Whatever 'the sum of all that is' is, it must be something existing eternally, uncreated.  It flows from the definition.

The alternative to that is the view that 'something can come from nothing' which is a death blow to our epistemology.

Matters must be settled at this level before its worthwhile to move on.

Stjohnny, I can't see how this issue matters even one iota to the question of whether gods exist.  If the material universe always existed, that does not preclude the existence of gods.  For example, Greek and Roman pagan philosophers believed this, and they thought the Jewish idea of an 'ex nihilo' universe to be a bit nutty.  Gods can fulfill other roles than just creating things.  Alternatively, if material existence 'sprung from nothing' (whatever that means), then it is not required that something, i.e. a god, must have existed to make it happen.  So this issue seems completely irrelevant to the atheism debate.

"Stjohnny, I can't see how this issue matters even one iota to the question of whether gods exist."

Probably because you are still locked into your notion that Zeus as a god is categorically the same as the Christian monotheistic concept.

You simply didn't answer the question.  As an atheist, I reject the existence of gods in general.  That includes your god.  It matters little whether I have a broader conception of gods than you wish to admit.  So how is the ex nihilo question relevant to atheism, which denies the existence of both creator and non-creator gods?

"So this issue seems completely irrelevant to the atheism debate."

a-theism.  Theism is not polytheism.  Theism is not pantheism.  You are not a apolytheist.  You are not an apantheist.  You are an 'atheist.'  That means that this clarification is completely relevant to the atheism debate, and beyond that, the atheism debate is meaningless without it.

Sorry, but your claim is nonsensical.  Atheism is a rejection of the belief that any gods exist, regardless of their special characteristics.  Pagans were not atheists because they rejected monotheism.  All you are trying to do here is narrow the definition of a god, and that does not address the question of why this issue is important or relevant to rejecting belief in gods.

Just because the word 'god' is used in reference to Zeus and Thor as well as to the God of Christianity doesn't mean its talking about the same thing.  We've been over this.  You are a professional linguist:  you should know better without being told.

Don't be silly.  I'm not trying to equate Zeus with Yahwe.  I'm simply asking you to explain how this issue is relevant to belief in any god.

"You simply didn't answer the question."

I absolutely did.

"As an atheist, I reject the existence of gods in general."

Perhaps Brian is arguing it from that perspective, but I don't think so.  However, most of the people on this forum don't give a rat's patootey about the pantheon, and no one is defending them.  The people defending any theistic propositions at all are defending the existence of an entity that belongs to an entirely different category.

"Sorry, but your claim is nonsensical. Atheism is a rejection of the belief that any gods exist, regardless of their special characteristics."

Just because you don't see the sense doesn't mean there isn't any.  I am not arguing about the definition of atheism.  I am pointing out that what is being debated here is something completely different.   At the least, for the sake of discussion you can focus your energies on what IS being debated instead of hemming and hawwing on how many other things atheists like to argue about.

"Don't be silly. I'm not trying to equate Zeus with Yahwe. I'm simply asking you to explain how this issue is relevant to belief in any god."

No, you didn't ask anything.  You made a statement of fact.  That statement was inaccurate.   If we were arguing about Zeus or 'gods' like him, then the starting point I offered would not be relevant, as you said.  However, since we are not talking about Zeusian gods, and you knew that, you can only have been treating them as though they were the same.  Otherwise your point has no basis at all.

For what its worth, the angels, if they exist, would be more categorically similar to the pantheon gods.

"You simply didn't answer the question."

I absolutely did.

If you say so.  

"Sorry, but your claim is nonsensical. Atheism is a rejection of the belief that any gods exist, regardless of their special characteristics."

Just because you don't see the sense doesn't mean there isn't any.  I am not arguing about the definition of atheism.  I am pointing out that what is being debated here is something completely different.   At the least, for the sake of discussion you can focus your energies on what IS being debated instead of hemming and hawwing on how many other things atheists like to argue about.

Actually, you did seem to be arguing about how to define atheism.  You tried to tie it to rejection of monotheism.  Sorry if I misunderstood you.  All B Stewart did in the OP was to point out a fundamental paradox in the belief that thinking beings had to have been created.  If that were true, then God could not be a thinking being.  Yet it is inherent in our conception of gods--your god included--that they be thinking beings.  This argument is similar to the atheist's point about infinite causal regression.  If everything had to have had a cause, then any conceivable god must have had a cause.  If there is some thing that could lack a cause, then that thing does not have to be a god.  There is no way in which one can get a free god out of such arguments, but theists can't seem to get away from using them all the time.

For what its worth, the angels, if they exist, would be more categorically similar to the pantheon gods.

Yes, this is a point that I have made quite often.  The difference between the Christian religion and polytheism is not all that great when you look at the role of angels and demons in the belief system.

If something exists that is uncaused does this mean that it has existed and will exist for infinity? Does this mean that there is something that has no beginning and will have no end?

If so, how is this concept more understandable than is the concept of an infinite set of causes?

If we must assume a foundational substance, why not assume that it is the substance that we observe all around us? What purpose is served by presupposing a foundational substance prior to or beyond the universe that we cannot observe?

If ex nihilo, nihil fit is true then nothing can be here today that hasn't been here forever. This means that we ourselves, no less than the rest of the universe, are not external to an eternal substance but are a part of it.

This means that "creation ex nihilo" never occurs. Only transformation occurs (like vapor into water into ice, etc.). Only a transformation of the eternal substance from one configuration to another occurs but the ultimate reality of which entities are composed never changes.

"I was describing a theistic argument, not necessarily your specific argument. Reread the passage."

As I am the only theist on the thread, who else are your comments being directed to?  You brought them up for a reason.  You thought them relevant to the conversation.  I think I drew the correct inference.

"Sorry if I wasn't speaking about your specific argument, but the comments on 'ex nihilo' logic (or lack thereof) do pertain to your specific argument, don't they?"

That's exactly what I'm talking about.  You want to avoid the responsibility of defending the rationality of a charge or statement by saying it isn't directed to me (and I'm the only theist on the thread as yet) or my argument, but then you still want the charge to 'stick.'  Please, pick one.

"If you say so. However, your position is still vulnerable to the attack raised by Cogito and others. If it is logically possible for God to be uncaused, then it is logically possible for anything to be uncaused."

No kidding,   .  I'm pretty sure that I have said as much.  I didn't need 'Cogito and others.'  I've already said it.  I have been trying to win agreement on the point with Brian.

"Who said that there was a malfunction? What I said was that angels and demons are functionally equivalent to lesser gods. Hence, the difference between polytheism and Christian "monotheism" is only superficial. It matters not that Christians refuse to call such beings gods. That is just a terminological dispute."

Well, that's a malfunction.  Again, having it both ways.  Earlier you protested when I accused you of equating Zeus with 'Yahwe' but here you come out and say you don't care what the Christians think- it being only a terminological dispute.  And people wonder why I make such pains to make sure the words we use are being understood the same way.   So you ARE saying that Zeus and Yahweh are the same.

Heck, I'm only in the thread at all to chat with you.  I'll keep my eye out for you.  I'd like to explain to you how I get from what we appear to agree on to where I'm at.  You may not agree with that, of course, but I'm sure you'd appreciate at least having a chance to understand how the argument progresses from this side of things.

FWIW, I'd like to know how you get from the things that we all appear to agree on to God; and I feel certain that Brian and Copernicus (unless he already knows) do, as well...

Just to clarify, I cannot say that I do know how sntjohnny gets from that agreement to his present state of mind.  And I think that we all do agree about the "fundamental substance" being uncaused.  We can proceed from there.

Ok, I'll keep going then.  There seems to be an audience.

A.  'X' serves to denote the sum of all that is real.
B.  Whatever 'x,' may be best described as, it is at the very least, uncaused.
-b1.  Whatever it is, its not me.  :)

Unless there are objections, I shall move on.

C.  'X,' by definition, cannot be equaled.

[Brief explanation:  If, for example, we supposed that along with Yahweh there was also the Demiurge, we would not yet be describing the 'sum of all that is real,' because in this case X=Yahweh+Demiurge (at the minimum).  Similarly, if we supposed that there was our own universe and perhaps another running parellel, we still would not be describing 'X', unless we supposed that Universe A+Universe B=X.  In both cases, 'X' is standing in for whatever the ultimate frame of reference is.]

I pause for consideration and comment.

They are not needed for the discussion at all.   They were only provided to explain the statement.  C follows definitionally from A and B.  One effect of statements A-C is that 'X' ends the regress problem.  A regression of 'gods' and a regression of 'universes' or whatever else we might want to postulate as potentially regressing or co-existing is stopped by concluding that the discussion is about the final step in the regression:  X.