Necessity is not evidence

[Chas]

Maybe =/= Necessity.

A lot of people historically believed Thor was a logical necessity due to the existence of lightening and thunder, but were mistaken.

That' not even in the same ballpark. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

It is in precisely the same ballpark. It just doesn't agree with your prejudices and preconceptions.

---

The latter is the subtext though, as the logical reasons they state ultimately fail, and yet are never retracted. As I've said many times, you can't logic something into existence, and if your whole position attempts to do an end run around demonstrability by just arguing why it's impossible for something to not exist, well then you're probably hiding a more personal reason for why you think this thing should exist.

But you can prove something true about existence by applying reason to experience independent of what one hopes to find.

Not without evidence.

---

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.

The ontological argument is illogical, it is mere wordplay on completely baseless assumptions.