In a word...no. Let's look at it:
Suppose there exists a book simply titled "The Book of God's Existence" which, using formal logic and reasoning, proves the existence of God. However, if one who does not already believe in God reads this book that person is doomed to eternal damnation.
That's one heck of an assumption to start out with.
Many prominent and vocal atheists have read the book intending to prove it wrong, but in each case they immediately become depressed believing their fate in Hell is assured.
Why are they damned, since they now presumably believe in God?
You, as an atheist, are not convinced that the book is correct. In fact, you're almost certain that it can be proven wrong since you discover it is simply a modified ontological argument and have successfully found logical fallacies in numerous other similar arguments. What do you do?
Since I have discovered this, I must have already read the book, yes? How else would I know?
There are only 3 valid actions that an atheist may take:
Refuse to read the book, but continue to deny God's existence. Refuse to read the book, but accept God's existence. Read the book. Each action requires a display of faith, either in God or one's self. Here's why:
Since I already know that the book consists of a modified ontological argument, I must have already read the book.
If they respond to the question with "I would just read the book" they express a blind faith that their intuition of the book's fallibility is correct without any evidence.
In this instance, the atheist has simply expressed his willingness to examine the evidence, and has not necessarily made a judgement as to the the book's fallibility in advance.
Further, they show a faith that the testimony of all the atheists who read the book is misguided despite the fact that each person who read the book was a strong atheist before, most likely including others that had also successfully refuted other ontological arguments.
You never said how many atheists have already read the book. 10? 100? 2? In any case, the fact that many other people have drawn a conclusion about it doesn't make of necessity mean they're correct (or incorrect, for that matter).
However, the greatest faith they place is in their belief that they will not be damned to Hell for reading the book without assurance.
Why would someone base their actions upon the threat of something they don't believe exists (their soul) ending up someplace they don't believe exists (Hell)?
This thought experiment is, I'm afraid, fatally flawed.
Thank you very much for this thorough criticism!
But perhaps I should have went into more detail about what I meant in the article...I intended the reason for damnation after reading the book to be something along the lines of “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost” since this is the only “unforgivable sin” Jesus speaks of. The book would show (in addition to God’s existence) that since they distrusted the conviction of the Holy Ghost and instead had to resort to absolute evidence that God exists, then they must display no faith since its pretty clear (eg. If God revealed himself with 100% certainty, then it takes no faith to believe in God)
As for the mechanics of knowing the argument without reading the book...you could assume that someone who read the book previously told you the form of the argument. However, since a standard ontological argument can be refuted it doesn’t reveal God’s existence alone.
As for the proving of faith:
If they read the book, then they must be reasonably sure that there is no threat of Hell. After all, if there is the slightest chance that they could be eternally tortured then the risks are too great and the person either 1. incredibly stupid for continuing anyways given the gravity of the consequences or 2. convinced that the work is incorrect despite evidence to the contrary.
As for the number of atheists that read the work, suppose that enough atheists have read it to cover every school of atheistic, agnostic and ignostic thought and were all familiar with every refutation to all arguments for the existence of God.
May I ask if you have any suggestions for rectifying these mistakes?