(December 28, 2015 at 10:59 am)ChadWooters Wrote: [quote='Jörmungandr' pid='1152384' dateline='1451158835']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.
The modal ontological argument, #7 -
"It is not the case that God necessarily doesn‘t exist."
Based on what reasoning?!
If my leprechaun possesses the three O's, is he then also as modally necessary as God?
Chad, you never answered any of my questions...[emoji19]
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
