The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[Cato]

...it's not about it may or may not exist sort of possible.

Then there's absolutely no point in presenting such an argument as a means of attempting to demonstrate something's existence.

[Mystic]

Still no good!  Just because something is possible does not make it so.  Pink unicorns are possible.  Seen any lately?

Pink unicorns are possible, but they aren't possibly necessarily.  That is, it's not possible that all possible worlds require a pink unicorn to exist.

However, it seems it's possible all possible worlds require a necessary being to exist. Therefore, by model logic, (what's possibly necessarily, is necessarily), then such a necessary being exists.

That is because what is in fact possibly necessarily so has been proven in model logic to be redundant to say possible, but rather is necessarily, so possibly necessarily is necessarily.

[Mystic]

...it's not about it may or may not exist sort of possible.

Then there's absolutely no point in presenting such an argument as a means of attempting to demonstrate something's existence.

No what I mean by that, is by the word "possible", it means in some possible world, it such that such and such is possible. Whatever is necessarily possible is necessarily. Therefore a necessary being being logically possible (as opposed to the may or may not exist type possible) would actually prove it to exist by this argument.

[IATIA]

However, it seems it's possible all possible worlds require a necessary being to exist.

No it does not! That is an strictly an opinion and not a necessity.

[Cyberman]

How do you know the attributes of pink unicorns to come to the conclusion that they're not "possibly necessary"?

[Reflex]

Rather than admit to misspeaking, what followed was a defense of the undefensible.

Your use of 'undefensible' is indefensible. One making a name for himself by castigating the use of language of others should be more careful.

You are absolutely right.

[IATIA]

Therefore a necessary being being logically possible...

NOT! That is my issue since I was a kid, there is no logically coherent possibility a god could exist.

[Mystic]

How do you know the attributes of pink unicorns to come to the conclusion that they're not "possibly necessary"?

A necessary being by definition would be such that it cannot be otherwise. This cannot be pink unicorns for example because they have size, a taint, etc, which all can vary and none of them are necessary characteristics. The same is true of matter in a universe, it may have different properties, be a different amount, be in a different arrangement. Therefore a universe cannot be necessary nor matter. That is logically, it's possible in some possible world, there to be a different type of order to the universe or different amount of matter or different properties. Whatever the necessary being is, it's such that it cannot be otherwise in any possible world.

Thinking about this, it seems to strongly point to God to be the necessary being.  Aside from the strange premise that if a necessary being is possible, then it surely exists (which is proven in model logic), we see that in fact, when you think about it, this being cannot 1.

Have properties that can be different (ie. size, amount, etc)
It's what by definition must be what it is in all possible worlds for all possible worlds to exist.

This seems to suggest it is independent while everything is dependent on it.  To me it seems obvious this must be perfection in the absolute sense.  That by definition cannot be different, but must be what it is. And it being absolute, it cannot be increased or decreased or have differing properties that another possible world can have a different necessary being.

This being being the source of all existence, the true nature of existence, at the very least to me seems rationally possible. And if that so, by model logic, it is so.

[Cyberman]

You're still making assumptions about something you have no way of examining. What if the Pink Unicorn is merely an approximation based on our limited human perception of it? Maybe we only understand it to be a unicorn, whatever that may be, and we imagine it as pink simply as a label. The true Pink Unicornness might be just the tiniest manifestation into our experiential reality. Why can it not be this necessary entity?

[Mystic]

You're still making assumptions about something you have no way of examining. What if the Pink Unicorn is merely an approximation based on our limited human perception of it? Maybe we only understand it to be a unicorn, whatever that may be, and we imagine it as pink simply as a label. The true Pink Unicornness might be just the tiniest manifestation into our experiential reality. Why can it not be this necessary entity?

Take for example why it's a unicorn as opposed to a horse. Why is it necessary for it to have the thing on it's head in all possible universes as opposed to being a horse? This shows it's not necessarily so.

We know rationally there is no reason it must have this horn as opposed to not having it. 

The next thing it being a unicorn, it has a size. Whatever size it has it can bigger or smaller, even if it's just slightly. Hence it's not necessarily in what it is.

Whatever the necessary being is, it has to be such that no possible world can do without it, and it would possibly necessarily so in all possible worlds. If such a being is rationally possible, it is so by model logic.