The modal ontological argument is not sound

Ave!Pre-Debate NotesThe modal ontological argument is an interesting and peculiar argument for the existence of god. The complexity of the argument makes it harder to comprehend, and because of this, the MOA is dismissed by most people. Even I admit that the argument seems absurd at first glance. In fact, when I was an atheist, I considered it the most stupid argument for the existence of god. However, my study of the argument now leads me to the conclusion that it is logically valid and sound.It's important to remember that the modal ontological argument is different from the ontological argument. The latter was created by Anselm of Cantebury in 1078. The former is a revision of this argument created by philosopher Alvin Plantinga. The logic of these two arguments is very different, so criticisms of Anselm's argument won't be relevant to my case. [1]Finally, we should note that the modal ontological argument isn't an argument for any particular religion. It's not an argument for the existence of the Judeo-Christian god or the god of Islam. The conclusion of the argument simply states that a maximally great being exists. Pro should not object to this argument with statements like 'That doesn't prove Christianity!' or 'That can be used to prove any monotheistic god!'. The MOA affirms the existence of, at the very least, a deistic conception of god. It doesn't ever try to show that this god is the Christian or Islamic one. [2]VocabularyContingent being--a being that exists in some possible worldsImpossible being--a being that exists in no possible worldsMaximally Great Being--a being that has all great-making properties to their maximal extent.Necessary being--a being that exists in all possible worldsPossible world--any logically possible state of affairsAbbreviationsMOA--Modal Ontological ArgumentPW--Possible WorldMGB--Maximally Great BeingNB--Necessary BeingIB--Impossible BeingCB--Contingent BeingAlvin Plantinga's Modal Ontological ArgumentP1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.P1In order for a being to be logically impossible, it has to have two traits that contradict each other. An example of this would be a being that is maximally omnipotent and maximally impotent at the same time. This being is logically impossible, so it's placed in the impossible being category.A maximally great being is not like that being, however. A maximally great being has no traits that make it an impossible being. The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz argued that since we cannot analyze perfection, there is no way to prove that all perfections cannot exist in one being to their maximal extent [4]. Because of this, it is logically possible that a maximally great being exists. [5]P2This follows logically from P1.P3I have established that there are three types of beings. Impossible beings, contingent beings, and necessary beings. My reasoning for P1 shows that a MGB is logically possible, so it cannot be an impossible being. This leaves us with two options: the MGB is a contingent being or a necessary being.A MGB has all great-making properties to their maximal extent. It's great to be a necessary being than a contingent being. It logically follows that a MGB would have to be a necessary being in order to be maximally great.Both IB and CB have been eliminated as viable options. Therefore, the MGB must be a necessary being that exists in all possible worlds. Therefore, there is warrant for thinking that P3 is true.P4The actual world is a possible world. Otherwise, it wouldn't exist.P5Follows logically.P6Follows logically.ConclusionThere is only way to disprove the MOA. Pro must show that a MGB has logically contradictory traits that make it an impossible being. This should be a tough task, considering the reasons I gave as to why a MGB is logically possible. So, let's wait to see what Pro will come up with.Sources[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] Simply read the conclusion of the argument.[3] http://www.debate.org...[4] http://plato.stanford.edu...[5] http://plato.stanford.edu...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...Vale!