Necessity is not evidence

[MindForgedManacle]

This from the idiot supporting an argument as conclusive when the argument was presented as inconclusive without presumption.

I'm fairly certain Chad doesn't accept ontological arguments as conclusive. He's given me that impression in other threads at least.

Which leads me to believe you and MFM are cribbing from sources without having read the original argument, otherwise you'd know this, and simply failing to provide the sources, and pass it off as your own original thought.

I've read the argument, which is why I've defended the argument from poor understandings, and often misrepresentations of it. Nor have I once said or implied everything I post is my own original thought. However, when one actually has some understanding of a topic, I fail to see it necessary to source absolutely every statement made, especially when they explain what they're talking about.

If you want to discuss an argument which hasn't been historically knocked down and curb-stomped by multiple sources, present something new and original instead of copy-pasting arguments that you haven't bothered to investigate yourself.

I haven't bothered to investigate this argument? Hah, that's rich. I have done so, which is why I reject it it. However, when people post here made claims analogous to a Creationist talking about evolution, I find it imperative to swat that down because otherwise these bad responses just persist. I certainly haven't copy-pasted the argument, I just don't accept Ray Comfort like responses to the argument by my fellow atheists.

Given I have "Naturalist" as my religious views, I clearly don't accept the argument, something I've stated in this thread alone like 5 times.

I don't accept possible worlds as having existence. They are hypothetical.

I agree. That's one reason why I reject Plantinga's argument. But I likewise realize that some do in fact accept possible worlds as actual things, so it's important to recognize that about the argument, especially when the topic of the ontology of possible worlds is both obscure and complex.