The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic

[Rational AKD]

Thanks for the elaboration,
I see, that's how it's supposed to be read... so it seems by putting the requirement of actual existence into the concept(*), coherence of the concept gets tied directly to actual existence. That means that if God exists, the concept is coherent, and if it doesn't, it is not? In this case, P1 is not only controversial, but effectively contains an assuption which is equivalent to the conclusion.

it is true that the first premise is equivalent to the conclusion, but they don't effectively mean the same thing. and though it is good of you to observe that the premise is equivalent to the conclusion, i must point out that's the entire purpose of the argument. to deduce that "it is possible a necessary God exists" is equivalent to "a necessary God exists." people often believe the first without accepting the second. since most people, even skeptics, would admit it is possible God exists; this argument becomes a powerful argument against those people.

---

You're suggesting that something can't come from nothing is an a priori truth and therefore a fact?

yes, because an action can only be preformed by a thing and nothing is not something. it is a contradiction of the very definition of nothing to suggest nothing can "do" something.