Atheist's lack of belief is unjustified position to hold

Ontological argument is based on premise that God is possible (exists somewhere).

Many misunderstand modal logic, but it is based on logical axiom that:

A. "God exists everywhere" - if accepted as claim, if accepted without proof, results in logical contradictions.

B. "God exists nowhere" - if accepted as claim, if accepted without proof, results in logical contradictions

C. "God exists somewhere" - no logical contradiction happens if accepted without proof

And then premises logically follow:

P1. God is defined as maximally great being

P2. Maximally great being, if exists somewhere, exists everywhere

P3. God exists somewhere

C. God exists everywhere

There is no way to disagree with modal logic, because it is one of basis of logic regarding existence.

The counter-ontological is basically:

P1. Maximally great being, if doesnt exist somewhere, doesnt exist anywhere

P2. God doesnt exist somewhere

C. God doesnt exist anywhere

So it would seem exactly same logic results in two opposite conclusions.

This is because "God doesnt exist somewhere" is in equal amount of proof as "God exists somewhere", but the claim "God doesnt exist somewhere" is exactly same as saying "God doesnt exist anywhere".

The flaw of ontological argument is this:

God can either exist everywhere or nowhere. To claim he exists at some place and doesnt in another contradicts with definition, which is why modal logic of possibility doesnt actually apply to maximally great being.

Instead, what applies is argument of modal necessity:

To claim that "there is no thing which exists everywhere" is a self contradicting claim, because it by its own logic cannot exist everywhere as truth.

To claim "there is thing which exists everywhere" is a consistent claim.

This argument is shorter than ontological, and still proves maximally great being by showing opposite is impossible and self-contradictive.

This means "God doesnt exist somewhere" is likewise self contradicting claim.

Doesn't Trump prove that there is no God?

No, he proves that Satan is God.

Well stated.

A Lynchku for Lucy.

Yin and Yang.

Woman Man

Theist Atheist.

Left and Right.

Clever Stupid.

Dark and Light.

Atheism is lack of belief in God; it is not the doctrine that God is not possible.

The belief that God is possible is a belief, not a lack of belief. So when I say I believe God is possible, should atheist reject such belief, he would be unjustified in rejecting it. There were atheists who claimed God is impossible, but that is incorrect, and also:

1. You cannot function as a person by lacking all belief
2. All people function based on beliefs they cannot prove. I go to sleep believing I will wake up tommorrow. I cant prove that I will wake up, but I set alarm clock anyway.

Get your definition right.

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists.

"Belief" is a woolly concept...Sort of, can't prove it but what the heck type of thing.

The term "GOD is possible" does not fall under the general umbrella of belief...But rather falls under the general umbrella of possibility.

The "absence of belief" still allows for possibilities...So we can never write off Pink Unicorns on the Planet Woooooo in the Fartybottom Galaxy.

Belief in God's existence is a matter of faith, personal conviction, or reasoned conclusion, while "possibilities" refers to the objective, empirical, or logical considerations of whether God exists or not

. A prominent framework for considering this is Pascal's Wager, which suggests that even if the probability of God's existence is uncertain, belief is a rational choice due to the potential infinite gain of eternal life if God exists and the finite loss of worldly pleasures if God does not. This contrasts with arguments for or against God's existence based on evidence, reason, or religious traditions. 

The belief that God is possible is a belief, not a lack of belief. So when I say I believe God is possible, should atheist reject such belief, he would be unjustified in rejecting it.

Nothing you have argued has demonstrated that. You began by defining atheism narrowly and spuriously, and built a house of cards upon that.

There were atheists who claimed God is impossible, but that is incorrect, and also:

You cannot function as a person by lacking all belief

All people function based on beliefs they cannot prove. I go to sleep believing I will wake up tommorrow. I cant prove that I will wake up, but I set alarm clock anyway.

I've never seen an atheist claim that God is impossible. It's indefensible and the argument from lack of evidence is wildly more advantageous.

More to the point, even if an atheist did claim that God is impossible, that does not mean that atheism itself is the belief that God is impossible (or the lack of belief that God is possible).

Get your definition right.

Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

Sort of said the same as me there Debs.

As did Pascal.

Whether or not the gamble pays off is not really relevant to the base argument though...That being the necessity of theism...Rather than the possible existence of a Universal Super-Intelligence....Which is a credible hypothesis that I am always happy to run with.

Though an omni-sensible GOD, is likely to be omni-sensible, rather than some sort of vindictive arsehole.

The claim that atheism leads to human depravity is a widely held 

perception, not a proven fact, and is often challenged by research showing that atheists are not inherently more prone to immoral behavior than religious people. This perception stems from the belief that religious faith is necessary to guard against immorality and prevent people from acting on their worse impulses due to fear of divine punishment. In reality, a person's lack of religious belief does not determine their morality, and many argue that morality can be rooted in humanistic values, philosophy, or the desire for a well-functioning society rather than divine command. 

Never stopped the Popes and Priests issuing divine retribution to the children, in the broom cupboard.

Hormones is as hormones do, as it were.

And hormones do as GODDO designed.

Hormones influence morality by 

modulating the emotional and cognitive processes underlying moral judgments, though the research is still developing and complex. For example, testosterone is linked to more utilitarian, outcome-focused decisions, potentially by reducing empathy or increasing a drive for status, while oxytocin may promote trust, affiliation, and emotional responses relevant to "caring for others". Cortisol, the stress hormone, has shown a negative association with altruism in emotionally charged situations. However, these relationships are nuanced, with individual differences and environmental factors playing a moderating role, and some studies show conflicting results. 

Well, some might argue that the base purpose of the endocrine system is bodily behaviour.

Some might further argue, that concepts such as morality, empathy, affiliation and trust are intellectual labels that some time later, we applied to bodily behaviour.

Certainly amazing that it all evolved from a primeval particulate soup.

Bodily behaviour encompasses the physical actions, gestures, postures, and movements that people exhibit, which can communicate nonverbally to others. This concept also includes behaviors like those involved in Buddhist spiritual discipline, specific body-focused repetitive behaviors (BFRBs) such as nail-biting, and the way physical activity is measured. 

And we inject the words "Buddhist spiritual" into the discussion, as a romantic mind stimulant, conjuring up establish images and notions of something that exceeds Western banality.

Though isn't it just a case of filling the day doing something?

Many Eastern cultures have figured out how to be spiritual without including a deity.That's why they get brought up in conversations about Western spirituality.

Religions without a deity, also called 

nontheistic religions, include traditions like Buddhism, Jainism, and Taoism that do not center on the belief or worship of a god or gods. These traditions often focus on ethical principles, self-improvement, and a path to enlightenment or fulfillment independent of divine intervention, with meaning derived from within the individual or through a connection to the universe, such as in Shintoism.