Ryan Stenger’s modal atheism argument pretty much proves atheism.

A. It is possible that p.

B. Necessarily, if it is possible that God exists, then it is necessary that God exists.

C. Necessarily, if God exists, then it is not the case that p.

D. Therefore, it is not possible that God exists. (from A, B, & C)

Various plugins for P can be used. Like,

1. Evil exists and a God is incompatible with it.

2. Minds can only exist in the physical world.

3. Free non god beings always do what is morally wrong.

4. Omnipotence is impossible

5. Being morally perfect is impossible

6. Omniscience is impossible

7. The universe was created by a non god thing.

It seems counter intuitive, but it works because god is said to be a necessity.

I'd like to add another argument. It comes from Ryan Stenger.

A. It is possible that p.

B. Necessarily, if it is possible that God exists, then it is necessary that God exists.

C. Necessarily, if God exists, then it is not the case that p.

D. Therefore, it is not possible that God exists. (from A, B, & C)

Various plugins for P can be used. Like,

1. Evil exists and a God is incompatible with it.

2. Minds can only exist in the physical world.

3. Free non god beings always do what is morally wrong.

4. Omnipotence is impossible

5. Being morally perfect is impossible

6. Omniscience is impossible.

Basically, at the very least it makes the ontological argument on equal footing as this argument. However, the ontological argument doesn't refute this because we can only say it is possible that a MGB exists, but we're not limited to one P. So, it would be more possible that all cases of the modal argument for atheism are true than the ontological argument.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ryan_stringer/modal-atheism.html

That's the very problem, existence isn't a property something has, it's what lets a thing have properties. If existence isn't a part of the definition, then it doesn't need to exist in all worlds.

How are great making properties irrelevant? If a tri omni properties aren't great, then how can the argument work? The entire point of the my objection is that there is a maximum conceivable limit. The question is, where did the limit come from? You misunderstood the objection.

This argument doesn't get rid of Kant’s objection. In order for god to exist in all possible words, then existence must be a great making property. If existence isn't a great making property, then a maximally great being doesn't need to necessarily exist in all.possible worlds.

Another argument against this the question of great. This first appeared in a debate I did and on a blog I write for.

It assumes an objective standard of great, but this standard can’t coexist with God.

Great is the working link in the chain. If we took “great” and added “weak” the arguments would fail. If the standard of great is subjective, then the argument can’t objectively prove God exists, since subjectivity is only in the mind.

So, where does the standard of great comes from to say that God is the greatest possible being?

I can think of 2 ways

1. The standard is above God

2. The standard comes from God/God’s nature/created by God.

Both ways can’t fit with the Ontological arguments.

The standard is above God

This can’t be true under a theistic world view, because it would undermine a God, by saying there’s something above him that he’s subject to. It also means the source of such a standard must be the ultimate of great thing, which God is suppose to be. I’m sure this will be regarded as false by most.

The standard comes from God/God’s nature/created by God.

This however would mean the arguments are committing the fallacy of begging the question. Since God, being the greatest must necessarily exist, but “great” is set by God. It’s like trying to prove a maximally fast car exists, but you say “fast” is set by how fast the car you’re trying to prove is going.

If “great” is set by the being, then saying God necessarily exists because it is the greatest, is saying God must necessarily exist, because God is most like himself.

http://doubtingdave.com/a-response-to-the-ontological-argument/

You don't even know what the word "fool" meant. It means moral fool or one who has no morals. Don't even know your own bible do you?

http://www.gotquestions.org/fool-heart-no-God.html

You forgot to type in all caps with your size 1000 text.

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:3

You call this a loving and just god?

Absolute, irrefutable, undeniable, irresistible proof doesn't exist for any god.

Here's some

Matthew 2:1

"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem..."

You just need to go find in history when did King Herod live. Although I'm sure you can find it elsewhere, Wikipedia is a very reliable source, so if you look it up, you can find that Herod the Great died in 4 BCE (although other sources point to 1 BCE, but this shouldn't make a big difference since Jesus was born when Herod was still alive, which means his birth happened before 4 BCE). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

Luke 2:1-2

"1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)"

And we all know that this Census was the reason for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem where Jesus was born. So, let's apply the same criteria here and go to history to figure out when this Census happened. And Luke clearly gives hints about this by mentioning that this happened "when Cyrenius was governor of Syria". So, let's go to Wikipedia one more time, and we can find that this census happened in the year 6 or 7 CE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

So, clearly these two gospels are contradicting each other.

Ezekiel 26 is prophecy about Tyre, Lebanon. In verse 14 it says

"And I will make thee a bare rock; thou shalt be a place for the spreading of nets; thou shalt be built no more: for I Jehovah have spoken it, saith the Lord Jehovah."

However Tyre was rebuilt and is alive a city today.

More failure in Ezekiel

Ezekiel 30:10-11

"This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will put an end to the hordes of Egypt by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He and his army—the most ruthless of nations— will be brought in to destroy the land. They will draw their swords against Egypt and fill the land with the slain."

However, Nebuchadnezzar was defeated in his only attempt to invade Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amasis_II#Egypt.27s_wealth

Mark 4:31

It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth

Wrong the mustard seed is not the smallest of all on earth! There are smaller

Matt 5:22

"...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

However Jesus says in luke 11:40

"Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?"

So Jesus says if you call someone a fool you will be in danger of hell fire, yet Jesus called people fools

I think that's enough.

I don't know,I'm freaked out if this is legit. Some of it just seems impossible, is there any video of this sphere being demonstrated? The orb just seems so fake.

They think it's nice to think they go somewhere awesome when they die. Simply wishful thinking