Good exists - a Catholic comments

[The Grand Nudger]

I mean...I don't accept it either?  It's one thing to think a conclusion is wrong, and another to declare an argument invalid.  

I'm sympathetic to the idea that it may actually be invalid in some non obvious way (this is evergreen, btw).  Some non obvious way that indicts every other conclusion of modal logic in equal measure.  We did build this system on the fly, after all.  Until we figure out how that is or might be, though, I'm willing to give credit where it's due.  It's obviously pretty hard to argue for a god without tripping all over your own dick.

Our experience (and the observational data) of time is another example of this.  Reality as we apprehend and observe it suggests that there's something fundamentally invalid in the mt/mp equivalence.  Logic (as we have it) suggests that causality can flow "backward" in time.  I feel like we'd notice this in lottery winnings at some point if it were true, but maybe we just aren't at that point yet.

Premise #1: If god exists, he exists necessarily. 

Wrong, If a being exists "necessarily" it's not a god, and it would be subject to the laws of Reality ... ad that's not a god. 
Plantigna destroyed in the first premise. No justification, nothing but an assertion. The end.

-disagreeing with a premise is generally disagreeing with the soundness of an argument, not it's validity.  As I said before, I also disagree.  As it so happens I disagree that the argument is sound.  Still...do you want the faithful to keep bombarding us with "If we came from apes, why are there still apes?" bullshit?  Let them make valid arguments and we can..at least...have an intelligent discussion, and intelligent disagreements.