A 21st Century Ontological Argument: does it work.

[h4ym4n]

Fail at step 2.  Conceivability implies nothing about possibility.

How so? Conceivability implies something exists in some possible world. In other words, it is possible.

A square circle is not possible. It exists in no possible world. It is not conceivable either.

Conceivability and possibility are basically synonymous terms imo. If it is conceivable, it is possible.

What created this possible world and which came first? 

The world or your god?

[Angrboda]

No, it doesn't.  If it does, then I can conceive of a world without God.  Since I can conceive it, it's possible.  If it's possible, there is one possible world without God.  Since God by definition, if he exists, exists in all possible worlds, then God doesn't exist by implication.  Thanks for playing.

Well played. But incorrect. Why? Because if I'm right, then your second statement is incorrect. You may think you can, but you actually cannot. In other words, someone who doesn't know that Pythagoras' Theorem is a necessary Truth may think he can conceive of a right angled triangle where a2+b2!=c2 where c is the hypotenuse etc, but he actually cannot. He only thinks he can. Thus, likewise, you may think you can conceive of a self-creating world, or a self-existing contingent world, without a Necessarily Existent Creator, but in fact, since His existence is at least possible, therefore it is necessary; in other words, there is no possible contingent world in which the Necessarily Existent Being does not exist.

Thanks for playing.

That's just dumb. How do you know what I can conceive unless you know, not just believe but know, that it's not possible. You don't. All we have is your word that it's not possible. In the same way you think you can conceive of God when in fact you may not be able to only because you have moved the bar to claiming that we can only conceive of things that are possible. In addition to begging the question, this is nonsense. As I can conceive a world where nothing exists, as can Aquinas, and it's not possible for you to show that it's not possible for there to be nothing.

Anyway, I can prove it deductively:

Assume, 1) conceive (X) --> possible (X)
2) by modal logic, conceive(X) --> possible(X) === conceive(X) --> necessarily possible(X)
3) by substitution, conceive(X) --> not possible (not possible(X))
4) I can conceive of a world where the laws of reality forbid X, therefore (possible (not possible(X))
5) by transitivity and 3, (not possible (not possible(X))
6) by transitivity and 5, (possible (not possible(X))
7) by conjunction of 5 & 6, (not possible(not possible(X)) AND (possible(not possible(X))
8) 7 is necessarily false, thus we have a contradiction by assuming 1
Therefore 1 is false.

And in case you need an example where an X cannot occur, you've just given one, a reality that consists of nothing; according to Aquinas, if there is nothing in all possible worlds, then nothing is possible.

As an addendum, you've acknowledged that I'm right, even though you don't admit it. By postulating that my conceived thing must be consistent with other known things, you've shown that conceiving of something, by itself, is not sufficient.

Now, show us that you can conceive of God as necessarily existing without begging the question.

[Mister Agenda]

So here's my own version of the Ontological Argument, borrowed indeed from St. Anselm, and Alvin Plantinga, who's been dubbed "St. Al", at least partly for his work on this subject, though more broadly for his general philosophical expertise; and also, slightly moving beyond them. Time will tell if the argument succeeds. Now, without further ado, here it is.

1. God is Conceived as the One Necessarily Existent Being.
2. Now, if a Being can be conceived as existing necessarily, it possibly exists. (since conceivability entails possibility).
3. Next, if a Necessary Being possibly exists, it exists in every possible world. (by nature of Necessary Existence).
4. Then, if a Necessary Being exists in every possible world, it exists in the actual world. (since the actual world is one of many possible worlds).
5. Therefore, God exists in the actual world. Or, more simply, Therefore, God exists.

Of course Atheists are going to object, lol. But I think the argument is sound, even though I once thought Ontological Arguments don't make the cut.

The reason the argument seems to work imo is because of the special Nature of God as a Necessarily Existent Being. 

Because God is a Necessarily Existent Being, His Existence cannot be merely possible without being actual, or actual without being necessary. 

His Existence is either necessary or it is impossible. In other words, no such Being as God could ever be conceived as possible if He didn't exist.

Now anyway, since most Atheists are not going to agree with that, go ahead and tell me which Step in the above you disagree with and why.

God Bless, and may God guide us all to Heaven in His own Good Time. In Jesus' Name.

Conceavability does not entail possibility. Comic books are full of conceived, impossible things.

[The Grand Nudger]

In modal logic they're the same thing. The s7 hook is fun too. The statements "a god exists in some possible world" and "gods necesarrily do not exist in every other possible world" can both be true..simultaneously, and that means that the statement "god exists" is true in every possible world, including the actual one (the one we live in) - even if this actual world is one of the possible worlds in which god necessarily does not exist. Sort of like saying that if peacocks exist in some country then, even if they don't exist in your country, the statement peacocks exist is still true in both countries.

As for the opq, even though op is gone...does it work? Depends on what work you want to do. Does it prove a god exists, or, frankly, what it sets out to prove? No. Plantinga, the author of the successful variant, acknowledges this. At best...and again, according to it's author.... it shows how..if a person believes that gods might be possible, it could be rational to believe they exist. Alot to unpack there - but I think it's incredible how a field that was once devoted to proving gods existence has settled for attempting to prove that anyone who believes in god isn't a loon. Talk about intellectual and societal decay. They call him saint for this..even in jest?