(December 26, 2015 at 3:40 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Chad seems convinced that God is modally necessary in a way that a leprichaun could not be. What that way is, specifically, seems to point toward the characteristics that a god must have in order for the modal ontological argument to apply. He can't simply be modally necessary as an accidental property of his being or else the leprichaun objection holds.
You have provided a fair summary of my position. Thank you. It's nice to feel understood for a change.