The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic

[Rational AKD]

I am going to stick to the first objection. With this "proof" of yours, you can "prove" the existence of literally anything that is defined as omnipotent and is not self-contradictory. Also, just because a god is technically conceivable, how does this mean one can exist? Is it possible for anything to be omnipotent, and can one really conceive of true omnipotence (i.e. infinity)? Does this mean that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is also real? How about an omnipotent and godly pink unicorn or an infinite mystical space cheeseburger, or...

oh, I forgot to cover the old parodies of the ontological argument in my objections. my bad. this doesn't work because it must not merely have the property of omnipotence, but it also must not have any contradicting properties. the flying spaghetti monster would fall under this contradiction:

3. why is P3 true?-- because of God's existence were dependent upon an external factor, that would be a weakness for him. for example, if God were made of matter, then he wouldn't be omnipotent because we can break down matter therefore we could break down God. God must therefore transcend matter, not depend on it.

as you see, it is impossible for an omnipotent being to be made of matter, so the flying spaghetti monster and your 'godly pink unicorn' can't be omnipotent.

I assume you mean the traditional religions definition which includes omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. All three qualities can't exist and still evil exists. The ancient Greeks tackled this issue long ago:

1. Is God willing but not able to stop evil: then he isn't omnipotent
2. Is God able to stop evil but not willing: then he isn't omnibenevolent.
3. Is God both willing and able to stop evil: then whence commeth evil.
3. Is God unable and unwilling to stop evil: then why call him God?

Note the deist definition of God does not include omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent. But that's not what we're talking about, is it?

and I already answered that objection here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-21312.html

Bare assertion.

no, it is not a bare assertion to state the concept of God includes omnipotence. that's simply one of his defining properties. it's no more a bare assertion than it would be to define literally any word. you might as well call all of language a bare assertion.

You can't use a bare assertion to prove another bare assertion.

I didn't...

Not necessarily.

really? how else can something exist if not by an external factor? if all external factors are ruled out, only an internal necessity can remain. and no, it can't be an internal contingency. that is impossible because it breaks the law of identity. A is A, and A is necessarily A. God is God and God is necessarily God.