The Ontological Argument

I would first like to address this "convincing" issue, because I think I haven't been clear enough. When I said that I have never seen anyone being convinced by this argument, I should have added "anyone WHO DOES NOT ALREADY BELIEVE IN THE CONCLUSION"; I was using "convinced" in the sense of "that which changed my mind" (and I do not know anyone who became a theist because of this argument). I am fully aware that the argument COULD be valid and sound even if no one found it convincing.Well, I havenâ€™t found an atheistic argument that changed my mind eitherâ€¦so we both can play the â€œconvincedâ€" game.Not only have I NOT attacked this premise, I have actually agreed with it. I do believe that it is POSSIBLE for a MGB to exist in some possible world. Then you've just inadvertently admitted that God exists, and I will explain why below. No, it just so happens that YOU ARE DEFINING God as having necessary existence, which is the semantic trick that I accused you of doing in my past round. Yes, but the accusation was/is misplaced. How something is defined has absolutely NOTHING to do with the truth value of whether or not that â€œthingâ€" is actually necessarily true. I can define my dog as having a necessary existence. But my dog does not have a necessary existence, so how he was defined has nothing to do with the truth value of the proposition. That is exactly WHY the argument is based on POSSIBILITIES, because all possible necessary truths MUST be actually necessarily true. Moreover, the dictionary definition that you give does NOT include necessary existence. Yes it does. It defines God as all-powerful. Omnipotence is not something that one can gain, it is a necessary attribute.Yes, IF a God actually created the rules of the universe then God would have to exist. But you don't simply get to assert that he IN FACT created the rules of the universe. The dictionary is simply stating what these various religion BELIEVES, not what is actually true. My sole purpose was to simply give a definition of the being that I am advocating for, nothing more, and nothing less. What is the point of arguing for "possibility" when your first premise already claims "necessity"? I can define God anyway I want to, but if it isnâ€™t possible for such a being to exist, then that would make the being as defined existence FALSE. I would first like to address this "convincing" issue, because I think I haven't been clear enough. When I said that I have never seen anyone being convinced by this argument, I should have added "anyone WHO DOES NOT ALREADY BELIEVE IN THE CONCLUSION"; I was using "convinced" in the sense of "that which changed my mind" (and I do not know anyone who became a theist because of this argument). I would also like to point out that I was not presenting this as an actual argument; I am fully aware that the argument COULD be valid and sound even if no one found it convincing. Well, I haven’t found an atheistic argument that changed my mind either…so we both can play the “convinced” game. Not only have I NOT attacked this premise, I have actually agreed with it. I do believe that it is POSSIBLE for a MGB to exist in some possible world. Then you’ve just inadvertently admitted that God exists, and I will explain why below. No, it just so happens that YOU ARE DEFINING God as having necessary existence, which is the semantic trick that I accused you of doing in my past round. Yes, but the accusation was/is misplaced. How something is defined has absolutely NOTHING to do with the truth value of whether or not that “thing” is actually necessarily true. I can define my dog as having a necessary existence. But my dog does not have a necessary existence, so how he was defined has nothing to do with the truth value of the proposition. That is exactly WHY the argument is based on POSSIBILITIES, because all possible necessary truths MUST be actually necessarily true. Moreover, the dictionary definition that you give does NOT include necessary existence. Yes it does. It defines God as all-powerful. Omnipotence is not something that one can gain, it is a necessary attribute. One cannot gain omnipotence via contigingent circumstances. You either have it, or you don't Yes, IF a God actually created the rules of the universe then God would have to exist. But you don't simply get to assert that he IN FACT created the rules of the universe. The dictionary is simply stating what these various religion BELIEVES, not what is actually true. My sole purpose was to simply give a definition of the being that I am advocating for, nothing more, and nothing less. What is the point of arguing for "possibility" when your first premise already claims "necessity"? I can define God anyway I want to, but if it isn’t possible for such a being to exist, then that would make the being as defined existence FALSE. You said yourself that necessity makes possibility irrelevant ("If something is possibly necessarily true, then it must be actually true.") So, given that fact, the argument basically becomes: 1) God exists necessarily 2) Therefore God exists If this is not a semantic trick and circular reasoning, then I do not know what it is. Nope, not quite. The argument is more like… All possible necessary truth’s must be actually true God’s existence is possibly necessarily true Therefore, God exists You already admitted that God’s existence is possible, so please explain to me how someone’s existence can be possibly necessarily true, but actually false at the same time??? If it is actually false, it was never possibly necessarily true to begin with, but you already admitted that it was!! Setting aside this idea that "atheism can't account for objective morality" (because I actually think that it can), the point of the problem of evil is that one can not RECONCILE evil and suffering with an omnibenevolent God. According to most theists, if God does exist, then objective morality DO exist and the problem of evil actually becomes a problem for them. Then again, it would seem as if you could have to prove why there couldn’t be a morally sufficient reason as to why God will allow evil and suffering. The burden of proof is on you in that regard. (This is a quote from my own first round) What I meant by that is when you define something with a certain characteristic, then this particular thing ONLY has this particular characteristic IF IT EXISTS. Of course I agree. If God doesn’t exist, then he doesn’t have necessary existence. That is basically what you are saying. The argument is if it is even POSSIBLE for God to exist, then God must exist. Again, a proposition cannot be possibly necessarily true, but actually false. That is like saying it is possible for the number 7 to be divided into the number 849894734987347737483473 evenly...since mathematical truths are necessary truths, if it is possible for 7 to be divided into that number evenly, then it is true that the number 7 can ACTUALLY be divided into that number. If 7 cannot be divided into that number, then it was never possibly necessarily true to begin with. By virtue of being omnipotent (limited only by logic, I really hate the "rock that god can't lift" argument), it is therefore possible for God to accomplish whatever goal he has WITHOUT having JFK killed, unless the assassination IS IN FACT his goal (but then benevolence goes right out the window). If God knew that the only way a few select people would get to know him by way of JFK’s assassination, then to God, that is a morally sufficient reason. If you disagree with this, then you are judging God based on your own personal standard, which is very much subjective and cannot be the basis of any objectivity by any measure. I would tend to agree, although I would also point out that there is no way to be ABSOLUTELY certain about that. Even mathematicians tend to agree that there is no ultimate way to prove that math is ALWAYS true. There is a way, actually. Does the concept of God violate any law of logic? Is the concept of such a being coherent? If the concept is logically coherent, then it is possible, in some possible world. The important part here is: IF God's existence is necessary. If God's existence is necessary, then I agree. My point was “If we are talking about a God whose existence is necessary”. If something is necessarily true, then discussing "possibility" is completely useless; something is EITHER impossible, possible or necessary. This is true UNLESS you are clearly defining the "necessity" as possible and NOT the "truth". In this case, the question remains: what is your justification to claim that God necessarily exist? The argument does not start by assuming that God is necessary, it assumes that God is defined as necessary, and in P2 makes the further point that such a being, as defined in P1, existence is possible. That was exactly my point, I was simly giving an exemple of how greatness can imply non-existence. But more importantly, you missed the first part of the quote; what is your justification to claim that existence is a necessary component of greatness? This goes back to my point in the beginning where I said that something only has a certain characteristic when that thing actually exists. Would you agree that necessary existence is of greater quality than contingent existence? No, my realicorns are not omnipotent nor omniscient, and they are pink. So, do they exist? Remember, they are defined as "unicorns that actually exist". While this may seem like a silly parody, I believe that is adequately illustrates the silliness of defining something into existence. Then your realicorn doesn’t have any “real” explanatory value. You have to posit an adequate enough explanation that will explain the origins of the universe, life, and consciousness…and your realicorn isn’t omnipotent, so it can’t do these things, but these things are precisely what needs to be explained.