The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[Simon Moon]

I think intuition says a Necessary being exists which is the true nature of existence. That is why existence exists rather then not, because it's the nature of existence to exist. But the independent existence is not such that it can vary possible world to possible world. It cannot be such that it can be increased or decreased or have unnecessary attributes for existence. Existence in the truest sense is the necessary existence in all possible worlds.

Now we leave aside this intuition, and we go to an argument shows if a necessary being is rationally possible, then it surely exists. This has to say a lot. It can be that the nature of necessary is such that it cannot be possible without having to exist. That is saying a lot in itself. Rational/logic proves that much, and we have to wonder, what is embedded in reality of necessary being that if it's possible it surely exists.

The only controversy is whether such a being is possible or not rationally. I think it's quite obvious that full true existence that is absolute and ultimate is not only rationally possible, but must be. But here we only discussing if it's rationally possible such a being to exist. And it's obvious to me it is.

When it comes to existential claims, who cares what intuition tells us?

We evolved in an environment where our intuition developed in order to help us survive, not figure out if there is a god.

So, tell us, how do you go about discerning whether such a being as you describe is possible? What are your data points?

As far as I can tell, a god that exists outside space and time, is not rationally possible, by definition.