A 21st Century Ontological Argument: does it work.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, it doesn't.  If it does, then I can conceive of a world without God.  Since I can conceive it, it's possible.  If it's possible, there is one possible world without God.  Since God by definition, if he exists, exists in all possible worlds, then God doesn't exist by implication.  Thanks for playing.

Well played. But incorrect. Why? Because if I'm right, then your second statement is incorrect. You may think you can, but you actually cannot. In other words, someone who doesn't know that Pythagoras' Theorem is a necessary Truth may think he can conceive of a right angled triangle where a2+b2!=c2 where c is the hypotenuse etc, but he actually cannot. He only thinks he can. Thus, likewise, you may think you can conceive of a self-creating world, or a self-existing contingent world, without a Necessarily Existent Creator, but in fact, since His existence is at least possible, therefore it is necessary; in other words, there is no possible contingent world in which the Necessarily Existent Being does not exist.

Thanks for playing.

(Bold mine)

Of course he can. I'm doing it right now. It's called 'hyperbolic geometry'. The Pythagorean Theorem and Euclid's Fifth postulate were meant to apply only to plane geometry.

Since I can conceive of what you've just said can't be conceived, then it stands to reason that a world without God is also conceivable, possible, and all the rest of it.

I would thank you for playing, but you've just tried to raise with a busted flush.

Boru

edit: You'll forgive the off-topic, but I've been wondering - why did you choose Cesare Borgia for your avatar? Nothing wrong with it, I'm just curious.