Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation

[MindForgedManacle]

Sorry to be dim, but I don't think I'm getting it.
Neither position seems to have reason to believe. If they exist, where are the real possible worlds? At least the fictional possibles only claim to be hypothetical. That makes sense.

You're not dim, this topic is a weird one. xD I would assume that, to a modal realist, the question "Where are these other possible worlds?" is a category error, a misapplied question, sort of like "What happened before time began?" The possible worlds are wherever they are (not sure I understand myself to be honest!).

I looked up indexical and I hope I'm using the right definition: that an indexical term's meaning will differ with usage and context.
Using that definition, in what context is the "this world is real" claim made other than in the world we find ourselves?

Under modal realism, that claim would be true if made in any possible world, including ours,, because they all exist on that view.

---

What defines what is actually possible in any given universe and what is not? How do we know God is possible in any universe? Is it, for example, possible in another universe that Scooby Doo is a living creature with all of the characteristics of the cartoon character? Same for Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck et al.

Well, we mustn't confuse a possible world with a universe. A possible world is a way the world could have been. There could be a possible world with no universe, one universe or a multiverse.

To be possible would simply to be logically consistent and consistemt with other things about that possible world methinks.

If we assume that there is a possible universe where God exists can we also assume that there is a possible universe where he doesn't? If there is a universe that exists without God then that universe was not created by him. If its possible for there to be a universe without God the creator then no universe needs a creator and therefore God doesn't exist in any possible universe.

Maybe. Theists try to define God such that he exists in ALL possible worlds. Of course, since this requires accept modal realism, one could say that there is a possible world where God does not exist since that is logically coherent.

Even if there is a universe where God exists how does he get from there to here? Surely, if he can visit any universe (omnipresence) then there can't be a single universe without him, but, some of those possible universes weren't created by him so he isn't really God there.

See above.

Actually there are about a dozen more of these but I think they are all on similar lines. I am probably making all sorts of false arguments (argument from ????). Perhaps you could point a few of them out?

I think the real problem is that they're trying to define God in such a way that it makes holding to modal realism practically untenable. They have to affirm that "God exists" is true of all possible worlds, even though "God does not exist" seems like a plausibly true statement of one or more possible worlds. They can't really be consistent here, in other words.

For example, a world with endless, gratuitous suffering of innumerable living beings for no higher good is a possible world, it's logically coherent. But Christians and Muslims must say that possible world cannot be because God exists in all possible worlds. Yet, that scenario is a possible world that... cannot possibly be? This is one of the many ways modal realism makes Abrahamic theists fall on their own sword, another being the previously mentioned polytheism entailment.