(March 4, 2017 at 4:20 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: The first premise is true if the theist defines God that way (after all, you can't refute a definition unless it is logically inconsistent). The second just means that since God is necessary (must exist), the existence of God implies existing in every possible world (logically impossible to not exist).
I define an apple as a horse with bat wings and mad guitar skills. Do you accept my first premise? Shall I construct an argument about apples using this? While it may not necessarily be a flawed premise, it is a useless one if I want to make any real point with it. It should either be an obvious definition or one that I can demonstrate with previous premises. Where do we draw the line between definitions and bald assertions? This can apply to the second premise as well. I accept neither of them.
The rest of the argument also slips up at the word "possible". Theists aren't able to demonstrate the possibility of any of these things attached to that word here. Until then, this is a useless argument.
