The Ontological Argument

Pro claims that his concept of necessity is relevant to this debate, apparently because it is a quality of an MGB and is therefore consistent throughout the argument. This however is simply an addition to the same argument which was made before. 1. A maximally great being would have the quality of being necessary for the world to exist. I can accept this statement as being true, it would. Assuming of course that it does in fact exist. 2. A maximally great being is necessary for the world to exist. How do we come to this conclusion? So far Pro has shown that an MGB has the quality of being necessary, but to establish that this quality itself exists we must first establish that an MGB exists. This is what the entire OA argument is about, yet it is once again assumed in the very premise that is used to conclude it. 3. A world where a maximally great being does not exist does not fill a necessary requirement for the worlds existence. At no point has Pro justified this statement. To suggest that the world can not exist without an MGB is to again, assume that an MGB exists in the first place. 4. It is absurd to think something exists when a necessary component for it's existence is missing. Same point. 5. It is absurd to think no maximally great being exists. It is, being that you have already assumed its existence as your explanation for the world’s existence. Summary Pro has presented a clarification to the definition of an MGB, which included the concept of necessity. If an MGB does exist then it follows that an MGB would be necessary for the world to exist because the MGB would now become our accepted reason for how the world came into existence. However since we do not know with any certainty how the world did come into existence, we have no basis (nor has Pro provided us with any) of what is in fact necessary for the world to exist. Therefore necessity at this point is nothing more then an assumed quality of an assumed being. I still do not believe this argument of necessity bares any relevance to the debate itself, but its logic is still flawed. If there is one thing that I think has been made clear, it is the fact that at some point in this argument Pro will have to assume the existence of an MGB in order to conclude that an MGB exists. It is easy to see this coming with the first premise, which is simply that its existence is possible. In the end this argument still does not lead to its conclusion and is therefore not sound. The necessity argument is one that can be utilized as support for belief in an MGB, however that is not the debate. We are not debating whether an MGB exists, we are debating whether the OA leads us to that conclusion. Necessity is simply a quality of an MGB, it bears no relevance to the OA. Axiom S5 Modal Logic If possibly P, then necessarily possibly P.If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P. I have never heard of S5 model logic but I can not say that it is compelling. Rather then to put together an elaborate refutation, I will simply demonstrate my objection by inserting “Santa Claus exists” as “P”. If possibly Santa Claus exists, then necessarily possibly Santa Claus exists.If possibly necessarily Santa Claus exists, then necessarily Santa Clause exists. I suppose children all over the world would be very happy to find this out. I hate to disappoint them, but Santa is not real. Logically speaking of course. One more round Pro. Good luck.