In the past, I've defended arguments for the existence of an incorruptible and eternal entity. While not all atheists are averse to accepting this conclusion, I have to wonder why so many (not all, and not necessarily most) atheists find the conclusion unacceptable. Is it because the conclusion is too God-like? Here's the Modal Third Way (MTW) once again. Why would any atheist find the argument so unpalatable?
1. Something cannot come from nothing. (Premise)
2. Something presently exists. (Premise)
3. Hence, there was never a past time at which nothing existed. (From 1 and 2)
4. Either everything that exists is destructible, or else there exists at least one indestructible entity. (Premise)
5. Possibly, there was a past time at which nothing destructible existed. (Premise)
6. Therefore, at least one indestructible entity N exists. (Implied by 3, 4 and 5)
Reductio ad absurdum:
7. Nothing indestructible exists. (Assumption)
8. If nothing indestructible exists, then there was possibly a past time at which nothing existed. (From 5 and 7)
9. (8) contradicts (3).
10. Therefore, (7) is false and at least one indestructible entity N exists. (Implied by 9)
Obviously, more argumentation is needed in order to show that N is God, but why do so many atheists have strong reservations about affirming the argument? Each of the argument's premises appears to be compellingly true.