Necessity is not evidence

[Rampant.A.I.]

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.

Then he's right, and it would do you well not to sign up for the same circle-jerk.

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. [/quote]

So you're backpedaling, noted.

Nor have I once said or implied everything I post is my own original thought.

So I only had to demonstrate to you 3-4 times the error in your logic, culminating in a tacit threat, and then back by consensus why you were wrong with from a reputable source, before the whining started.

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.

You're channeling Kant here, so I don't
know if you're talking about the this-Thisness, or the this Thisness of This, or Thisness of Thisness.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

That's odd. You seemed to support said argument insofar as it proved me wrong. But OK.

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.

Or something. But you were perfectly content to support a failed argument when it suited your needs.

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.

And I've stated, like 5 times, the objections to your argument, and it took an an outside authoritative source to show you how silly your objections were.

quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='668689' dateline='1399845078']

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

[/quote]
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.

It's only obscure because you are unwilling to admit you are fundamentally wrong in your characterization of the argument presented. If you have a better argument to present, present it. Otherwise, stop pretending