(March 5, 2017 at 7:55 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:(March 5, 2017 at 6:05 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote: That is the major fallacy of all variations of the ontological argument. They assume God is logically necessary and go from there.
Well, not exactly. They try to assert that God is logically necessary by defining the term "God" as "a being that is logically necessary".
They do in the case of the ontological argument, especially this variety:
1. If it is possible for God to exist, then God exists in every possible world.
2. It is possible for God to exist.
3. Therefore, God exists in every possible world.
With 3, it follows that God exists. The reason that the possibility of God means the existence of God is that God exists in every possible world as a necessary being. I don't see theists trying to justify the conception of God being necessary, they pretty much assume it, just as they assume that God is omnipotent. It is basically part of the concept of God.
Theists may argue that since all contingent things must have an explanation and that explanation at some point should be necessary (exists with no explanation), then they just claim that they call this necessary explanation God.
Hail Satan! 
