The Ontological Argument

(I'll drop the "Pro" stuff as well)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. "Con is objecting to my "burden of proof", as I stated that in order for him to dismantle the argument, he must explain why the existence of a Supreme Being is impossible. He said "the only thing he has to do is demonstrate that the premises are unsound/invalid. "" I stand by my position. "Well, I'd like to remind Con that one of the premises of the argument (P2) is that the existence of a Supreme Being is possible. That is one of the premises, so if he attacks that premise, then he is in fact doing exactly what I said he must do, which is demonstrate why the existence of a Supreme Being is not possible. " 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. "I am merely defining God, and it just so happens that "necessary existence" is part of the essence of God's being. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of God is:the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe. " 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. Moreover, the dictionary definition that you give does NOT include necessary existence. "In order to "create and rule" the universe, one would have to exist necessarily. So I will ask Con, is Webster dictionary also using a form of circular reasoning as it defineds God? " 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. "The argument starts off by defining God, and then it gives reasons why such a being's existence, as defined, is possible. " What is the point of arguing for "possibility" when your first premise already claims "necessity"? 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 necessarily2) Therefore God existsIf this is not a semantic trick and circular reasoning, then I do not know what it is. "The problem of evil? In order to use the problem of evil for anything, Con would have to assume an objective standard by which one can judge or determine what is considered "good", or "evil". " 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. "There is a big problem with the conclusion. Saying that Item X has attribute Y only means: "if X exists, then it is Y". Considering this, the conclusion becomes: "If God exists, then God exists", which is a useless tautology" (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. For example, a rock is only made of atoms if it exists. This is why attributing "existence" as a characteristic is circular reasoning. "Now this is interesting. You (I will drop the "Con" stuff) just stated that you have trouble imagining how it is possible to be objectively moral, yet you previously used the problem of evil in your rebuttal? " My view on the objectivity of morality is irrelevant to the problem of evil for reasons I have stated previously. "For this, I will appeal to what can be called "morally sufficient reason(s)". Assuming that God exists, he may have morally sufficient reasons to allow JFK to be killed, and as long as this is even possible, all of God's acts (or failure to act) may be justified. " 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). "This is completely subjective. God's existence may not be apparent to you, but it is apparent to me. " Ok, I'll let this slide because I do not want to turn this debate in a debate about intelligent design. "Necessary truths are truths that are true in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS. " 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. "So if God's existence is necessary, it has to be necessary in all possible worlds. So as I said in my explanation of 3 (which you granted) if it is possible for a MGB to exist in another possible world besides our own, then this being would have to exist in our world, since our world is one of the "possible" worlds. " The important part here is: IF God's existence is necessary. If God's existence is necessary, then I agree. My objection about the bad modus ponen was based on a misunderstanding on my part of my opponent's point. "Yes it does, when we are talking about necessary truths. If something is possibly necessarily true, then it must be actually true. " 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? "If something isn't real, then it doesn't exist! !! How can something that doesn't exist transcend anything, let alone be great? " 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. "My response to this is simple. If you define this "realicorn" with every attribute that I've defined God as. .then the being that you are call "realicorn" is actually another word for. .. "God". " 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.