The Ontological Argument

"Well, I haven’t found an atheistic argument that changed my mind either…so we both can play the “convinced” game. " Atheism is not a position that requires convincing, it is simply the rejection of theistic claims. Atheism is the default position. "Then you’ve just inadvertently admitted that God exists, and I will explain why below. " We'll see about that. "How something is defined has absolutely NOTHING to do with the truth value of whether or not that “thing” is actually necessarily true. " And yet the only justification that you have given so far to support your assertion that God exists necessarily is that he is defined that way. "That is exactly WHY the argument is based on POSSIBILITIES, because all possible necessary truths MUST be actually necessarily true. " As I have already said, possibility is a meaningless concept when we're discussing necessary truth. "Yes it does. It defines God as all-powerful" All-powerful does not mean necessary existence. "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. " And there we have; you flat out just said that you can define God anyway you want, which means that there is NO justification behind your definition. It is true that a word can mean anything to anyone, but it is NOT true that this meaning necessarily corresponds to something that actually exists. "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" And since I have already established that "possibility" and "necessity" are mutually exclusive concepts (in the terms that you're using), the argument is actually more like the one I previously presented. "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? ?? " Your usage of the word possibly is becoming very confusing, could you please clarify whether "possibly" refers to "necessarily" or "true"? Because my answer will depend which term is "possible". If "necessity" is the thing that is possible, then your argument is coherent, but you are still lacking the demonstration that God IS IN FACT necessarily existent. If "truth" is the thing that is possible AND yet is also necessary, then your argument is simply an assertion that God exists, without any supporting evidence. "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. " I have actually fulfilled my burden in the JFK example; if God is omnipotent, then he can achieve whatever goal he has in mind WITHOUT causing suffering around the world, UNLESS the suffering IS his goal, in which case he would be immoral. "Of course I agree. If God doesn’t exist, then he doesn’t have necessary existence. That is basically what you are saying. " Pretty much. "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. " Again, a proposition can not be both possible AND necessary. "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. " Ah, I think I see what the problem is: you do not actually understand what "possible" means, or rather what it implies. To be able to say that X is possible, it must be the case that it can be both true and false (although not simultaneously). For example, it is POSSIBLE for a golfer to make a hole-in-one (the ball can either go in the hole, or it can go elsewhere), it is also POSSIBLE that I get struck by lightning in the next year. On the other hand, it is NOT possible that 2+2=5, nor is it possible for a square circle to exist. Furthermore, it is not "possible" that 2+2=4, since it is necessary. In the case of a being that necessary exists, it is NOT possible for that being to NOT exist, which is why you CAN NOT use the term "possible" when you are talking about that being's existence. "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. " The syntax of this sentence made it difficult to understand, could you please rephrase it? "Does the concept of God violate any law of logic? " Yes, the law of non-contradiction (via the problem of evil). "Is the concept of such a being coherent? " I do not believe that "existing outside of time" is a coherent concept, so no. "My point was “If we are talking about a God whose existence is necessary”" Which is a premise that I DO NOT GRANT. "The argument does not start by assuming that God is necessary, it assumes that God is defined as necessary" So you grant that you are simply starting with the assumption that God is (or "is defined as") necessary? Great, now HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY THAT ASSUMPTION? "and in P2 makes the further point that such a being, as defined in P1, existence is possible. " Which, as I have said countless times, is useless. "Would you agree that necessary existence is of greater quality than contingent existence? " I am so glad that you ask this question because the answer is NO. I am absolutely not convinced that existence is a quality that is affected by greatness; I believe that existence is simply a state. Assuming that you disagree with me, what would be your justification to claim that existence is a part of greatness? "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. " Two things: first, why is "explanatory power" a prerequisite to necessary existence? Second, God has absolutely NO explanatory power; it tells us absolutely nothing about anything, it makes NO predictions and it seems contradictory with what we observe.