The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm seeing it as. It's been a long time since I've been in any school, and my career never called for much math application, so perhaps I may have worded it wrong.

I gazed at Plantinga's ontology for the first time, and the first thing I said was "WTF, nobody would try and say that the possibility of pink nicorns roaming a remote planet somewhere in our galaxy makes it a certain truth, so he can't really be saying that of any Earth deity". I thought about it for hours, and then it hit me that he must be suggesting (deviously, as a hidden diversion from the possibility logic which he had established in his first ontology statement) the logic which is used in a random-sample probability solution. Either that or he presumes the universe is infinite (which is false), or the multiverse (not proven, therefore should not be presumed) is infinite (probably false anyway). I can't see how such a contextual difference between scientific possibility and mathematical probability can be easily confused, therefore I believe Plantinga has been more than devious in his fallacious argument.

As noted by Brian, Plantinga's ontology is crap.

Well if we pretend for argument's sake it was valid, there would still be the problem of all the countless god claims in our species, and what would Plantinga do if other people co opted his argument to point to a different god and different holy book? Like I said, other religions have their apologists too. 

Where religion fails is that the buyer never considers that "all this" isn't caused by a being, but is simply a giant weather pattern in which we are a mere finite blip. When you have Hawking saying "A god is not required", your probability issues are solved by Occam's Razor and the best data we have so far is that humans make up gods and science is pointing away for the need for one.

All true, and all are issues which I've visited years before, but somehow or another I had not seen Plantinga's argument before. I just could not fucking believe that such an insult to logic ever got past his peers in his time, much less any teacher of science or math today.

Oh, wait - Google threw me off! Should have googled "plantinga", not "ontological for god" with it. The bastard is actually recent, still around? Goddammit, it's just scary how mercilessly the god-botherers are butchering everything intellectual, and people are just lining up to be dumbed down by it!