The Reverse Modal Ontological Argument Refutes God

Given the simplistic nature of this resolution I do not expect to use all 10,000 characters in each round – so hopefully this debate will be more concise. Argument SummaryI will present the basic form of the argument first, and then go through the justifying logic later. P1. If God’s existence is possible, then God’s existence is necessaryP2. God’s existence is not necessaryC. God’s existence is not possibleThis simplistic argument yields the conclusion that God’s existence is impossible. Thus to refute this argument, Pro would need to demonstrate that God's non-existance is impossible. This I will extend to the form I will be defending within this debate:P1. If God exists in any logically possible world, then God exists in all logically possible worlds (definition)P2. If God does not exist in at least one possible world then God does not exist in all logically possible worldsP3. God does not exist in at least one logically possible worldP4. God does not exist in all logically possible worlds (2,3 Modus Ponens)C. God does not exist in any logically possible world (1,4 Modus Tollens)This argument is logically valid via modus tollens and modus ponens, thus the conclusion, which is synonymous with the metaphysical impossibility of God, follows necessarily if P1-3 are true. Con would need to refute at least one premise to successfully negate. Defence of Premise 1This comes from God’s definition as a necessary being “An intelligent being that would exist modally necessarily”. This is to state that there is no logically possible state of affairs in which God cannot exist IF God exists. To argue against this is to contradict God’s definition. Defence of Premise 2This is a tautology. Defence of Premise 3I will spend most of my time defending this premise, as it is the only premise with information, and the only possibly contestable premise by Pro. For Pro to refute my argument he would need to demonstrate that it is impossible for there to be a logically possible world without a God in it. A proposition is logically possible if it entails no logical contradiction, and hence is logically consistent (and hence coherent). [ . http://en.wikipedia.org...]Example World 1 – NihiloOne possible world is one without anything in it whatsoever, this is a state of affairs with nothing to internally contradict itself, no matter, no particles, nothing. Thus, it is impossible to be self-inconsistent since there is nothing to be inconsistent with. Example World 2 – Abstract WorldAnother possible world is one that is not based on daesin, or “being”. Thus, nothing would exist in such a world as we understand it, although logical frameworks would be constructable. Since there is nothing ontological to contradict itself, and assuming that logic itself doesn’t contradict itself – it follows it is logically consistent and thus possible. Example World 3 – Single Particle UniversesImagine a world with a single particle in it, that exists in a four dimensional framework, obeying basic a basic Hamiltonian with respect to time that extends infinitely into the past and future. Time wouldn’t exist in this universe like we generally experience it – it would merely just be a four dimensional graphical plot – with a line drawn on four axis that represents what this single particle does. This universe would just exist as-is, modally contingently, but without requiring an explanation for itself. [ ]Example world 4 – Theories Of EverythingIf naturalism is a possible explanation for this world, then we have another example. I only need to cite the numerous proposed theories of everything that attempt to explain the universe. Note that none of these have to correctly explain our current universe – only that they are a mathematical framework by which a universe, or various universes could exist from. Clearly a universe that is entirely contingent on a mathematical description doesn’t have an intelligent being with will within it, much less one that has any sort of will (which would be impossible to exactly map mathematically). Again, these would exist modally contingently, and without requiring external explanation. Examples include Carrol-Chen, Linde, etc. [ . http://goo.gl..., . http://goo.gl...]Intuitional ArgumentOur minds possess an amazing power of knowing what is metaphysically possible from mere epistemic possibility. Thus, if you can conceive of a basic world with no God in it – well done, you have just upheld premise 3. SummaryThere is not much else to add to this argument. Good luck to Con in refuting it.