Necessity is not evidence

[MindForgedManacle]

Yes it is. It simply uses more floral descriptors, but relies on the same appeal to ignorance.

You really don't know what you're talking about here. They're no "floral descriptors", just an attempt at a deductive argument.

It is no more logical to confabulate an entity, then state that entity must necessarily exist by virtue of the properties of the description, than it is to confabulate an entity around some natural process, then insist that entity must exist because it explains a natural process you've included in the entity's description.

That really just depends on one's metaphysical views, and their are coherent metaphysical positions - such as modal realism - that allow for that.

That's really great; Plantinga is profoundly intellectually dishonest, especially considering his field, and his modal argument is presumptive and circular, just like the KCA.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-ne...y-being/#1

Plantinga's ontological argument is not circular unless you consider ALL deductive arguments to be circular. And I very much doubt you want to get into a debate regarding the nature of argumentation.