The modal ontological argument - without modal logic proves atheism

[max-greece]

This is either the bravest or dumbest post I have ever made as my understanding of philosophy can be written on the back of a postage stamp in crayon.

AS follows:

Borrowing from Rational AKD's post:

Purpose:
Just to be clear, the purpose of this argument is to prove the mere possibility that God exists implies his actual existence. with the success of this argument, the only burden I have to fulfill is to prove God is possible, then logic dictates he actually exists. God here is defined generically as an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being. this definition may be consistent with any monotheistic or deistic theology. this argument does not prove Christianity is correct. it does prove atheism is incorrect.

Argument:
P1: the concept of God has no contradictions in itself.
P2: if the concept of God has no contradictions, it is conceivable.
C1: therefore God is conceivable.
P3: if God's existence were dependent upon an external factor, he wouldn't be omnipotent.
P4: the concept of God includes omnipotence.
C2: therefore God's existence is not dependent upon an external factor.
P5: if something's existence is not dependent upon an external factor, then it necessarily exists in and of itself (given it is conceivable).
C3: therefore God's existence is necessary in and of itself.
P6: something that necessarily exists must actually exist.
C4: therefore God exists.

I think this is a brilliant proof. If true then God, and just one God, has to exist. For the argument God is: "God here is defined generically as an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being."

Part 1:

As I observed in the original thread, however, the moral component plays no part in the argument, other than as an original definition of God.

We can therefore create another definitional god which has all the properties of the above God but is perfectly immoral.

If the above argument is true then that God must exist just as the original must.

This brings us into a paradox. For them both to exist we get omnipotence incoherence in a battle of wills.

For one to exist the other must.
They cannot exist together.
Therefore neither exist.

Part 2:

In order to get around the problems above we must therefore remove morality entirely from our definition of God.

We now have an omnipotent, omniscient God who is probably morally neutral.

The original argument is unaffected. Therefore that God must exist.

Just as for the case of morality, however, so for the case of omniscience. Omniscience plays not part in the argument.

We could either chose to strip it out immediately, on the basis of Occam's razor, or generate another God using the original principle who is not omniscient and again face the conflict of wills problem.

Part 3:

In order to get around the problems above we must therefore remove omniscience entirely from our definition of God.

We now have an omnipotent God, morally neutral and not knowing everything.

If he can't know everything then he can know nothing.

Further, if the concept of the universe from nothing holds - and any universe in the multiverse can appear out of nothing then nothing(ness) fulfils the property of omnipotence in that it can create any possible universe.

Therefore nothingness is omnipotent.

Finale:

Whatever properties you assign to God the argument proves that he cannot exist. Whether he is omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect, whether he is just omnipotent and omniscient or merely omnipotent he tends to nothingness.

Interestingly the property not mentioned, "omnipresent", is also fulfilled by nothingness.

I thank you.