The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[Esquilax]

What is possibly necessary, is necessary is an axiom proven through model logic.  He was asking where I go from something being possible to being true, well, in the case of necessary beings, if it's possibly necessary, then it is necessary is proven by model logic, although, admittedly it seems counter intuitive.

Me: "You can't logic a thing into objective existence. Logical arguments alone aren't sufficient to do that, except in cases where they refer to real world evidence in support of their premises."

MysticKnight: "But if we use this specific set of modal logic premises..."

You seriously don't see the immediate, blindingly obvious problem with your response here? Like, really?

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.

Unjustified opinions don't count for much.

Now we leave aside this intuition, and we go to an argument shows if a necessary being is rationally possible, then it surely exists.

How do you intend to demonstrate that there's a substantial difference between your "logical argument," divorced as it is from any form of evidence, and simply making things up?

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.

"Because my intuition says so!"

God, this is the most insultingly anemic argument for god I've ever read.