The Reverse Modal Ontological Argument Refutes God

Thank you Envisage for the challenge. Instead of refuting the summary Envisage offered I will address the extended form of his argument. R1. Premise 1 In the Modal argument for God, the definition of God is "Maximally Great Being" (MGB). Because of the property "Maximally Great" the modal logic follows such a being is necessary. When in the first round God was defined I assumed that is what the term "modally necessarily" meant. Necessary by the Modal Argument. The property "maximally great" is the attribute of key importance to why "God" would be modally necessary. "great" referring to a positive property, and "maximally" referring to the extent or magnitude of a property being 'max'. "Existence" in these arguments is deemed a positive property. And if MGB is possible in any world, then it follows to be possible to the greatest or max extent, therefore MGB exists in all worlds. The Modal Arguments proceed with saying that if something exists in all worlds then it exists "necessarily".[1] P1 is "true" by way of the Modal argument giving "God" the property of being "Maximally Great". R2. Premise 2 "P2. If God does not exist in at least one possible world then God does not exist in all logically possible worlds..." A tautology is a formula which is "always true". Discerning if something is a tautology is a mechanical process of examining structure. I look forward to Envisage offering the modal axiom or tautology formula he equates P2 to. For the time being I am willing to accept this as "true". R3. Premise 3 Envisage remarks "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". Envisage Defines God as "An intelligent being that would exist modally necessarily". Due to the Modal argument which makes premise 1 true, we accept that if God an MGB is in any possible world than God is in all possible worlds. God as an MGB is A. Any possible world must have all necessary entities. Because it is a tautology that A is necessary if and only if it is not possible for A not to be. Something that is necessary must then exist in all worlds. If There is a world where an MGB is not possible then it is logical to deduce that such a world is not possible. R4. Example worlds If premise 1 is to be accepted as true (which it must to validate premise 4 and the conclusion) then such a world is not possible. Containing no members it contains nothing that is necessary, which is not possible.R11. MGB in Example World 1 – Nihilo Major. A set is defined by it's members. An empty set has no members to define it. Therefore an empty set has nothing to define it, anything not distinguishable from "nothing" is by definition nothing. Law of identity A = A. Such a world can not exist. Minor. God is a maximally great being. Any positive property in a world, God will have it to the max extent. While an empty world has no members it is a world that exists. There is only one empty set. The greatest existence for an MGB in such a world would be to be the set itself. because an MGB can be the only MGB this is consistent with there only being one empty set.R22. Example World 2 – Abstract World Envisage describes this world without "being", a world in which nothing exists as we understand it. Daesin is the experience of being as human beings. I don't see why a MGB could not exist in such a world. In fact if a Maximally Great Being is one with all things and transcendental than such a world may be "home" to a MGB.R33 Example World 3 – Single Particle Universes Seems circular. "God can't exist in a world I define as a world without God." R44 Example world 4 – Theories Of Everything A Maximally Great Being doesn't need to do anything in a world but exist. Summary: I look forward to the next round.