Possible is not necessarily possible.

[gall]

It's possible that I don't have a clue what you are talking about;
and it may be impossible for me to ever understand the probability of being able to do so.

If you understand how a circle is drawn then you understand what is going on in this thread.

Semantic argument is semantic.

[NoraBrimstone]

Lay off the drugs, man.

[Anomalocaris]

I think what is possible isn't necessarily possible.

This is because we can say "This may or may not be possible" and from a sense of the word it would be a possibility, even though from another sense, this possibility maybe impossible.

As for ontological possibilities, it's actually the same thing. For all we know perspective, an ontologically possibility maybe possible or may not be possible.

Also, it maybe things like magic or souls, are ontologically impossible without God, and it maybe ontologically from all we know perspective, that things outside of space and physical world, cannot exist.

Therefore ontological possibilities are not necessarily possible.

Therefore, the first premise that leads to the counter intuitive premise from modal logic that "What's possibly necessarily, is necessarily" to me seems false.

Thus the conclusion which is counter intuitive is not proven to me.

Your intuition is profoundly fallable and you are a fool for using it as a benchmark.

[MindForgedManacle]

It sounds like the Ontological argument (spec. Plantinga's). If I remember correctly, in the framework that Plantinga's argument uses (axiom S5), to say that something is "possibly necessarily true" is equivalent to saying that it is "actually necessarily true".

Doesn't that make his argument question-begging?