Necessity is not evidence

[Cheerful Charlie]

Something I have noticed with the regular theists who post here is that their main concern of evidence for god's existence is that he is necessary.

That is not evidence, because god is absolutely not necessary.

If god was a veritable necessity, people would be unable to live normal lives without god.

Considering that atheists are quite capable of living perfectly normal lives without god, the necessity of god is negated.

Necessity, after all, is the oxygen we breath. Without it, we would die. We are perfectly capable of not dying without god.

God is merely the crutch to which theists cling because they have deluded (yes, there is that apt word again) themselves into thinking life is meaningless without the ruling delusion.

What the mean by necessary is that God created all, and thus has to exist since all other thing rely on God's existence and creation of all other things.

I posted a thread called super-omnipotence a few months back you may want to
search for. Super-omnipotence goes like this. Anselm stated God is that that is so great, nothing greater can be imagined.

Descartes and William of Okham stated God creates the laws, rules, metaphysical necessities of the Universe, the very logic of the Universe. God could make 2 + 2 = 5 id he so desired or any other state of affairs God desires. This then is the greatest thing imaginable.

God is dogmatically stated to be good and to have creayed all

God is morally perfect, perfectly good, God has a good nature, and God has free will. God freely of his own free will never does moral evil. A perfectly moral and good God would naturally eliminate all moral evil if possible.

To do so is trivial, God would create man with a God-like good nature and a god-like free will. Anything that might possibly prevent that, God could eliminate since God makes the rules and laws of the Universe. Any reason a theist offers to explain why God tolerates moral evil is not possibly true.

But we do not live in this world free of moral evil, this God does not exist. Either God is not as defined, perfectly moral good, or all powerful in the sense of being super-omnipotent.

If the latter, if to save appearances, the theist drops super-omnipotence, then it is admitted that naturalism, the rules, laws, the logic of the Universe are not created by God. These things are outside and beyond God's control and creation, and are transcedent to any possible perfectly good, creator God.

Naturalism must exist, that is, naturalism must logically be necessary in the technical metaphysical sense of that term. We cannot avoid naturalism, but we don't need God at all, naturalism can account for all existence with no need for Gods, fairies, or supernaturalism.

So much for presuppositionalism, TAG, Plantinga's claims naturalism is impossible, Kalam and more.

Nomism is the scientific study of why the physical Universe has the laws it does,
the study of naturalism if you will.

---

Except that it is not valid.

"Premise 3: If the MGB exists in some possible world, then the MGB exists in all possible worlds"

This is an invalid flip from 'there exists' to 'for all'. Logic fail.

The problem is that hypothetical maximal Gods have problems with self-contradictions. The problems of free will vs omniscience, problem of evil and much more. Thus such Gods cannot be said to exist in this world or any possible worlds.

Modal logic is beside the point when we think about God in this manner.

The only way out for theists is to start abandoning these troublesome attributes that create these contradictions but we end up with a God that no longer has the attributes claimed for God in the Bible or Quran. A god nobody wants, believes in or finds worth worshiping. And goodbye Christianity, Islam et al.