Plantiga's ontological argument.

[Mystic]

Both are valid premises unless you are assuming the outcome to the statement at question.

What am I'm saying is that we know God is possible while we don't know if it's possible that God doesn't exist. This is what I'm saying. We know God is possible in possible world W. But we don't know for sure if there exists a possible world W without God. Perhaps existence is impossible without God. However God being possible in some possible world W, to me is obviously possible

You cannot say "it is impossible for God to not-exist" and still pretend you are leaving the question open. If God's non-existence is presupposed to be impossible, that means you have presupposed God exists. You can't have it both ways. Either you assume God exists/doesn't exist, or you have no answer.

The argument shows if God is possible, then he exists necessarily. I don't think that is just asserting God exists, it's rather concluding based on God's necessary nature, if it's possible such a being exists in any possible world W, then he necessarily exists.

However I would say while it's obvious God is possible in a possible world W, it's not obvious a world is a possible without God. We know the former is true, while we don't know the latter is true.

[toro]

What am I'm saying is that we know God is possible while we don't know if it's possible that God doesn't exist.

The former implies the later. Possible means it could be true and it could be false. Otherwise it's called 'true'/'false'. If you define it as true/false, you're begging the question.

Perhaps existence is impossible without God.

Perhaps existence is impossible without my dog peeing on a lamppost.

However God being possible in some possible world W, to me is obviously possible.

You are confusing the term possible used in the argument for a second term.

God being possible in a possible world means: we can premise that God exists in a possible (your second term) world, and we can premise that God does not exist in a possible (your second term) world. Both premises are possible (your first term).

This is what makes the S5 axiom so trivial regarding such general truths: one can potentially create an infinite regress of worlds and define the rules to be whatever one wants. I eluded to this in my earlier post.

Observe:

1. God is a being that, if it exists, it exists necessarily (premise 1)
2.1 There is a possible world, P_{-N}, in which one can premise that either there is a possible world P_{1} in which God exists or there is a possible world P_{2} in which God does not exist. (premise 2.1)
2.2 There is a possible world, P_{-N+1}, in which one can not premise that there is a possible world, P_{-N}, in which one can premise that either there is a possible world P_{1} in which God exists or there is a possible world P_{2} in which God does not exist. (premise 2.2)
...
2.2N There is a possible world, P_{N}, in which... there is a possible world, P_{-N+1}, in which one can not premise that there is a possible world, P_{-N}, in which one can premise that either there is a possible world P_{1} in which God exists or there is a possible world P_{2} in which God does not exist. (premise 2.2N)
...
and so on.

The end point being: the ontological argument is arbitrary nonsense.

[Mystic]

The former implies the later. Possible means it could be true and it could be false. Otherwise it's called 'true'/'false'. If you define it as true/false, you're begging the question.

Well stating it could be true, doesn't necessarily state it could be false. I disagree with this. Possible simple means it could be, it doesn't mean it could possible not be

God being possible in a possible world means: we can premise that God exists in a possible (your second term) world, and we can premise that God does not exist in a possible (your second term) world. Both premises are possible (your first term).

No it doesn't mean we can premise God not existing in a world. Both premises are not shown to be possible. We don't know whether a world can exist without God. If God is a Necessary Being and exists, then a world cannot exist without God.

[toro]

MysticKnight... I've explained this whole thing already. There is no reason one cannot apply such a premise.

Your entire argument is based on the idea that one cannot apply a given premise. You validate this by saying, "I don't think so" (opinion), assuming non-existence is not possible (begging the question), and using the result to justify the premise (circular reasoning).

Also, congrats for committing the argument from argumentation fallacy.

[IATIA]

Well stating it could be true, doesn't necessarily state it could be false. I disagree with this. Possible simple means it could be, it doesn't mean it could possible not be

Wrong!

pos·si·ble adj \ˈpä-sə-bəl\

1. 1. being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization <a possible but difficult task>
      
   2. being what may be conceived, be done, or occur according to nature, custom, or manners <the best possible care> <the worst possible circumstance>
      
2. 1. being something that may or may not occur <a possible surprise visit>
      
   2. being something that may or may not be true or actual <possible explanation>
      
3. having an indicated potential <a possible housing site>
   

[Mystic]

One weakness of this argument is that which "Necessary Being" is possible.

If more then one necessary being is possible, then different necessary beings all must exist, by this proposition.

So a Punishing Wrathful Creator is logically possible just must as a Merciful Forgiving Creator.

Yet both must exist by this argument.

I honestly been thinking about this, and I think the problem really lies in the word "possible" and I think the standard rules of logic applied to language don't apply to it.

[simplexity]

This argument fails because you can use it to prove anything since the premise itself is an assumption that anything is possible. Any argument that starts with an assumption like this is obviously flawed. It jumps to the end and then uses the conclusion to prove itself. Circular statement. If God exists you can use the same argument to prove he doesn't like someone else stated.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I do not accept God can be argued into or out of existence. Consequently, I invite both believers and hard atheists to provide some credible evidence for their claims.

So far, nobody in recorded history has managed do so.

[Welsh cake]

I do not accept God can be argued into or out of existence. Consequently, I invite both believers and hard atheists to provide some credible evidence for their claims.

So far, nobody in recorded history has managed do so.

We can't very well argue something out of existence that hasn't been demonstrated to exist first.

Speaking of which, what the fuck is this "god" everyone is banging on about anyway and assumes it must be disproven first?

I can dismiss the whole concept as meaningless garbage and move on.

[toro]

Speaking of which, what the fuck is this "god" everyone is banging on about anyway and assumes it must be disproven first?

I can dismiss the whole concept as meaningless garbage and move on.

When you get a consistent, coherent and meaningful definition that is differentiable from "nothing" let me know please.