The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic

[Alex K]

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.

Haha, are you taking a piss? Here you changed from stating a few hypotheticals (e.g. if it exists, its existence must not be dependent upon an external factor because blabla) and in the next step just dropped the conditional "if it exists" and called it a proof? That's just a cheap exploitation of imprecise language, nothing more. P6 should actually read "if it exists, something that necessarilty exists must actually exist", which does not allow C4. Your little sleight of hand is facilitated by dropping the word "concept" midway.

P6 is a delayed begging the question, because it misrepresents C3: Why isn't C3 already your proof? Because it really is still a hypothetical. C3 subsequently is misrepresented
in the first half of P6 to mean that God necessarily exists, no further condition.

Same already with the step to C2, where suddenly you conveniently forget that what you are actually arguing is that if God exists, his dependence cannot be dependent upon an external factor - because it would otherwise violate your definition of what a god is. It can of course still simply not exist, then it doesn't have to fulfil any of these premises which you establish.

The technique which you use is to stretch out an argument over many steps in which you choose imprecise language to reach a fake conclusion. I'm sure if you add three more intermediate premises, it will be even harder to spot.

If you like proofs, you should study real mathematics. Don't waste your time with this bogus stuff.