( No Title )
Also if the best thing you can say for atheism is that its not responsible for mass murder, you’re sort of damning it with faint praise.
I think the best thing I can say about atheism is that it is true. So…there is that.
You have no more proof of that, than I have of proof of the Norse gods.
That isn’t true.
The God being rejected is a necessary being, that is to say it isn’t contingent (eternal, aseity, etc). Such a being either exists in every possible world or in no possible worlds (Logically follows from necessity). A possible world is a way in which the world or universe is or could have been (the actual world is one possible world), meaning there are no logical contradictions within the proposed world. It is easy to conceive of a possible world in which no God exists and no logical contradictions exist. Since this is the case, there is at least one possible world in which God doesn’t exist. If there is even one possible world in which God doesn’t exist, then it can’t exist in ANY possible worlds (logically follows from necessity).
So…God doesn’t exist.
Sorry, are you trying to disprove god using multiverse theory?
No, I am using the Reverse Modal ontological argument in order to disprove the existence of God. Modal Logic is a system of logic that uses possible world semantics.
^This is the original modal ontological, which begs the question. The reverse Modal Ontological argument avoids begging the question because we can actually conceive of a possible world without MGB (God).
“The problem is in premise two–MGB must be demonstrated to be incoherent. Now, when the atheist is defending the argument he may certainly attempt to demonstrate that a MGB is incoherent but that’s the task before him. There certainly isn’t an explicit contradiction so an implicit contradiction must be explicated. This goes back to premise 1 of the theistic ontological argument while not dealing with the criticisms needed to justify premises one and two. It must be demonstrated that God is logically absurd before finishing premise one. All the theist must do is defend the case that God’s essence (and indexed properties) are logically compossible. ”
Discussion ¬