The Ontological Argument

[MindForgedManacle]

So.. If god god exists in any possible world he must exist in all possible worlds.

Firstly, he starts with an "if",then somehow without explanation turns it into a "must", therefore god.

Ta Dah!!!

Ok, let's try this another way. Since this should be applicable to anything we can imagine, we'll swap god for a million dollars in my bank account.

So... If in a possible world I have a million dollars in my bank account, then that must be so in all possible worlds, including the actual one.

*checks bank account*

Oops, no million dollars. Guess that fails then.

I should note that Plantinga has specifically stated that his argument does not establish it's conclusion as true. Rather, he believes it makes theism rationally tenable.

---

It's not a terribly persuasive argument: what's the more "maximally great being," the one who does all the things theists say he does, or the one that does all of that while simultaneously not existing?

I submit that the latter feat is far more impressive, and thus the maximally great being cannot exist under the premises of the ontological argument.

If it didn't exist, then it by necessity couldn't do anything and thus couldn't be labelled 'more impressive', so I don't think that objection works.