(March 6, 2017 at 6:22 pm)TheAtheologian Wrote:(March 6, 2017 at 9:41 am)SteveII Wrote: This argument falls apart right from the beginning because you used the word 'possible' instead of 'conceivable' when describing God. You should look at the real version of the Ontological Argument--every word is carefully defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
Why should we start from what the human mind can conceive?
The human mind is not the problem. Using 'possible' creates a couple of problems.
Defining God as the greatest possible being is not the definition of God. How do you define what is 'possible'? Since it is not clear that God would necessarily exist from premise 1, you you have an unsupported assertion in 2.
The whole argument hinges on greatest conceivable (maximally great) being concept and it is a greater to exist in all possible worlds than one possible world. Premise 3 requires understanding of S5 Modal Logic. Substituting "possible" does not allow you to bridge the argument from 2 to 3 because you need it to be necessarily so.
