Necessity is not evidence

[MindForgedManacle]

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

I haven't. You have to be very dense if you think I have once supported the argument as either conclusive or persuasive. The fact that I recently made the following thread is demonstrative that I do not accept it at all: Ontological Arguments - A Comprehensive Refutation

So you're backpedaling, noted.

If you're going to say something so fucking stupid, at least show where I backpedaled (which I haven't).

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.

Whining? Where? Again, I demonstrated why YOU didn't know what you were talking about, to which you resorted to quoting SEP in ways that didn't even contradict me. After all, the only relevant thing the SEP quotes you posted said was that the arguments are't convincing. Given that I'm an atheist and actually have some understanding of these arguments, clearly I don't think they're persuasive. Otherwise, I wouldn't be an atheist. I really didn't think I had to ppoint out something THAT obvious.

And yet again, did not make a threat, tacit or otherwise. Or did you just decide to ignore my response to your last assertion of that by means of a non sequitur?:

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.

Since it seems I must - yet again point this out - Plantinga's ontological argument is logically VALID. Like I said before, to claim Plantinga's argument is circular implies ALL deductive arguments are circular, since Plantinga's is no more circular than they.

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.

-sigh- NO. I don't even resemble Kant here. What I said was that I don't source absolutely everything I say on an internet forum, most especially when I actually have some understanding of the topic, and even more so when I actually explain it.

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

No, you are paying poor attention. I rejected misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the argument, I didn't once support the argument as if it worked and I challenge you to show me where I did. Why would I want bad responses to the argument to be given?

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

No I didn't. Showing how someone else is wrong about a topic or argument does not even imply that I support that topic or argument. That's just absurd. I've defended theists on this forum a good number of times, but each of those theists are quite aware that I emphatically do not agree with them on any number of topics, including the existence of gods.

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.

MY argument? At best, you posted responses to ontological arguments, but you haven't responded to my rebuttals to bad understandings of it. And in fact, as I pointed out earlier in this post, I didn't see anything in what you quoted from SEP that contradicted anything I said, and you don't seemed to have made clear where I was contradicted by the SEP.

Oh, and I like how, in the above quote, you completely fail to recognize that I don't, nor have claimed, to accept the argument.

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

How was I wrong in my characterization of the argument? I especially doubt that, given you don't even seem to grasp what the argument is saying. In fact, in one of your quotes from SEP, you completely mischaracterize what is said:

Your SEP quote said this:

Plainly enough, non-theists and necessitarian theists disagree about the layout of logical space, i.e., the space of possible worlds. The sample argument consists, in effect, of two premises: one which says that God exists in at least one possible world; and one which says that God exists in all possible worlds if God exists in any. It is perfectly obvious that no non-theist can accept this pair of premises. Of course, a non-theist can allow—if they wish—that there are possible worlds in which there are contingent Gods. However, it is quite clear that no rational, reflective, etc. non-theist will accept the pair of premises in the sample argument.

and you said this:

Presupposing: <it is possible God Exists>
To conclude: Therefore <God Exists>
By Plantinga's own admission.

Or, more directly stated: If we presuppose: <God Exists>
We can reasonably conclude: <God Exists>

You REALLY don't understand what is being said by SEP there. SEP is, as I said, talking about the ontology of possible worlds/the metaphysics of modality with respect to the modal ontological argument, as I underlined above. And if you don't know, the ontology of possible worlds is an obscure area of philosophy, and that was what I was referring to in my previous post.

So when you characterize Plantinga's argument as just presupposing God exists to conclude God exists, you are bullshitting in the extreme. The argument is using axiom S5 in modal logic and possible worlds semantics to try and reasonably establish "God exists" as either true or reasonably acceptable, by making asserting the premise that God's existence is at least possible. Plantinga's "admission" is nothing new, he's saying the argument does not establish "God exists" as conclusive, just that it's reasonable to accept if you think God could exist. Worse for you, Plantinga fully accepts that atheists can reject his argument, and here is what I earlier was talking about in regards to the validity of his argument and other deductive arguments:

Once you see how the argument works, you may think that asserting or believing the conclusion; the canny atheist will say that he does not believe it is possible that there be a maximally great being. But would not a similar criticism hold of any valid argument? Take any valid argument: once you see how it works, you may think that asserting or believing the premise is tantamount to asserting or believing the conclusion.