Well, you can't really win here. It's either a hand-wavey definition you could never formally prove, or a rigid, 'loaded' definition.
That said, the basis of the proof does seem to be that 'if god exists, then he must exist', which is not really groundbreaking.
Actually, its "if god must exist, he exists".
Well, you can't really win here. It's either a hand-wavey definition you could never formally prove, or a rigid, 'loaded' definition.
That said, the basis of the proof does seem to be that 'if god exists, then he must exist', which is not really groundbreaking.