The Modal Ontological Argument

[For_The_Kingdom]

Before I begin the actual argument, a few terms/concepts must be addressed. One of those concepts involves possible world semantics. What is a possible world (PW)?

A PW is a set of circumstances or any proposition that could be true, or could be falseor a set of circumstances or any proposition that could be necessarily true, or necessarily false.

Example: Barack Obama is the President of the United States.

If this statement is true, then there is a possible world at which Barack Obama is President of the United States. However, since Barack Obama could very well NOT be the President of the U.S., then it follows that there is a possible world at which Barack Obama isnt President of the U.S.

So, in essence, there is a possible world (set of circumstances) at which Barack Obama is the President of the U.S. (and vice versa). In other words, its possible.

That being said; lets turn our attention to the difference between contingent truths, and necessary truths. Contingent truths are circumstances or propositions that could be true, but could also be equally false (such as the example above).

Necessary truths are truths that are either true or false REGARDLESS of the circumstances. So in essence, necessary truths are true in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS. Good examples of necessary truths are mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4 <--- this is true in all possible circumstances and can never be false under any circumstance.

Next, Id like to turn the attention to the definition of God. God, at least as defined by Christian theism, is a maximally great being (MGB). By maximally great, we mean that God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere at any given time), and omnibenevolent (the ultimate source of goodness)an ultimately, such a being is necessary in its existence (such a being cannot fail/cease to exist).

The four "omni's"that you see above, those are what we'd called "great making properties." A person is considered "great" based on accomplishments, power, influence, character, etc.

Being a maximally great being, all of those great-making properties are maxed out to the degree at which there isn't anything left to add. It is virtually impossible to think of a "greater being" than one that is all-knowing, all powerful, present everywhere, and the ultimate source of goodness.

Now, the Modal Ontological Argument makes a case that it is possible for such a being to actually exist. In other words; there is a possible world at which a MGB exists.

On to the argument..

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (our world).

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Of course, most of you will agree that it is possible for a MGB to exist. The problem is, once you admit that it is possible for a MGB to exist, you are essentially saying It is possible for a necessary being to exist.

Well, if it is possible for a necessary being to exist, then it follows that such a being must ACTUALLY exist. Why? Because a proposition cannot be possibly necessarily true, but actually false (because if the proposition is actually false, then it was never possibly necessarily true).

Again, most of you admit that it is possible for God to exist. Well, if it is possible for God to exist, then God must actually exist, because Gods existence would be one of necessity, and no necessary truth can be possibly true, but actually false.

And under the same token, if it is possible for God to NOT exist, then it is impossible for God to exist. So, Gods existence is either necessarily true, or necessarily false. And again for the third time, at some point in each and every one of your lives, youve admitted that it is possible for God to exist.

Therefore, God must exist. And as I close this argument, just for the record, it will take more than you people putting your hand over your ears and shouting The argument is not valid or whatever you like to say when a theist bring forth an argument.

You actually have to address the argument (1-5), and explain why any of the premises are false. But I dont think that you can, can you?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Great. If P1 is false then we can close this thread.

That is a big "if".

No. You said: "So, apparently, the changing of the future is thereby impossible...and no one is claiming that even with an attribute such a omnipotence, that a MGB can do something that is logically absurd." My comment above directly deals with this omni-stuff, so it logically follows.

But notice you didn't address the fact that you want God to do something that is logically absurd. If it is a fact that God cannot do something, that would mean that it can't be done...and the only thing that God is unable to do is defy logic and reason.

God (MGB), is the greatest CONCEIVABLE being..which means that he is the greatest being that you can think of..and if the greatest conceivable being cant do something, then it can't be done. And unless you can point out a being that CAN do it but God can't, then the buck stops with God (not to mention the fact that the being that could do it, would also be God).

If your MGB is all knowing than it cannot have free will.

I haven't seen anyone try to claim free will is absurd, and in fact the inerrant word of your particular god says it exists. But if that god is all knowing then it can't. Seems to be quite the dilemma. I look forward to you sorting it out for us.

Yeah, let me sort it out for you all. I have a question tho, since we are talking about free will and you are using this as an objection to the concept of of a MGB...

So, human beings; do we have free will? Yes or no?

Or better yet, if you are an atheist, are you freely choosing not to believe in God? Is that a free choice on your part? Yes, or no?

That question is preliminary to your objection.

Your god can't seem to do much of anything given all its omni powers...

We will see about that. Please answer the above questions.

No, you put the MGB in this scenario. The Bible puts the MGB (your god) in this scenario. I didn't list what this thing can do, you did and the bible did. The claims being made about the properties and abilities of the MGB are logically absurd. The MGB/god creature cannot possibly exist.

The scenario is a MGB possessing the attribute of omniscient. There isn't anything wrong with that. The issue is when the objector places God's omniscient into logically absurd paradoxes, which is what you've done.

There are no internal contradictions regarding the attributes of God.

Except as I already explained the MGB can't have free will and therefore can't choose to do anything. Free will must be a logical absurdity, eh?

Please explain, why in the free throw shooting scenario, does God not have the freedom to freely choose to miss a shot?

Ahh, but we all notice you fail to describe, in technicolorly detail, what it is I fail to understand. Please explain to us how something maximally great can exist everywhere in something that is no longer maximally great. I'm all ears...

You said "If it exists everywhere then part of its existence isn't maximally great now"...and I basically said that based on that quote, you apparently don't know what maximal greatness means.

The quote doesn't even make sense.

Except it had to miss that free throw, because it already knew it was going to miss that free throw. No choice there. Solve the dilemma.

This is related to the questions I asked above. Please answer those questions.

Except for all the illogical contradiction of it, which I have detailed out for you multiple times above and in previous posts, which you have not rectified.

I will rectify once you answer the questions.

I've also explained to you that just because something is conceivable doesn't make it possible

And I've also explained to you that the above statement is true only with contingent propositions, not necessary propositions. We are almost 30 pages into the thread and you still aren't differentiating between contingent propositions, and necessary propositions, DESPITE the fact that over and over again, I've explained why the distinction needs to be made (also in the OP).

Yet, below you said pointed out that I am "repeating" myself. Well, that is why I have to.

, and gave an example of that (it was either a square circle or an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, maybe even both now that I think about it).
It appears you are repeating yourself and running around in a circle a little bit.

I am repeating myself, because I am talking to different people and saying the same things over and over again. Glad you noticed.

And I did address your unstoppable force/immovable object...I addressed it by saying that it may not be possible for a MGB to create such things, due to the logical impossibility of it...and that was an easy response to what you thought was a difficult objection.

That was not my point. If there is an all good god creature that exists everywhere all the time, how can evil exist in its existence?

I don't believe the existence of evil is incompatible with a omnibenovelent being.

(Not to mention how a maximally great all good being even makes something that can be evil (us) when it changed its perfect existence by creating an imperfect world)...

I don't believe it is possible for God to create human beings with free will and there not be the potential for evil. God could have created humans perfect, but if he did, there would be no free will.

If the goal was to allow free human beings to live, then the potential for evil was always there. There is no way to have one without the other.

I don't envy the work you've got ahead of you....

Light work.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 289 by For_The_Kingdom]

This post inspired a thread in General Chat http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 651#794651

Participation of all interested is invited.

[Kenisaw]

Great. If P1 is false then we can close this thread.

That is a big "if".

It's a done deal actually. The being you describe can't exist, period. The dilemmas you created are unsolvable.

No. You said: "So, apparently, the changing of the future is thereby impossible...and no one is claiming that even with an attribute such a omnipotence, that a MGB can do something that is logically absurd." My comment above directly deals with this omni-stuff, so it logically follows.

But notice you didn't address the fact that you want God to do something that is logically absurd. If it is a fact that God cannot do something, that would mean that it can't be done...and the only thing that God is unable to do is defy logic and reason.

Right, and your god being able to have free will defies logic and reason. Your god being all good defies logic and reason since evil exists and your god created it. Your god being maximally great defies logic and reason since it created imperfection. Your god existing eternally yet reaching a point in its existence where it created the universe defies logic and reason, which means it can't have created us.

This isn't just about choosing to miss a free throw, Kingdom. Your being can't do much of anything. It is impotent and irrational.

God (MGB), is the greatest CONCEIVABLE being..which means that he is the greatest being that you can think of..and if the greatest conceivable being cant do something, then it can't be done. And unless you can point out a being that CAN do it but God can't, then the buck stops with God (not to mention the fact that the being that could do it, would also be God).

I can't point out being that does any of it, your particular flavor of god included. There isn't any empirical evidence or data that supports any god claim in the history of mankind. None. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

But this conceivable nonsense is a true non sequitur. We can conceive of beings that can defy logic, can't we? So that would make them greater than a divine entity that can't defy logic. The logic defying being can't pass through your modal nonsense, but that doesn't mean we can't conceive of it. I'll explain for a third time that what we can conceive has NOTHING to do with what we can prove. Imagination is not a substitution for reality...

If your MGB is all knowing than it cannot have free will.

I haven't seen anyone try to claim free will is absurd, and in fact the inerrant word of your particular god says it exists. But if that god is all knowing then it can't. Seems to be quite the dilemma. I look forward to you sorting it out for us.

Yeah, let me sort it out for you all. I have a question tho, since we are talking about free will and you are using this as an objection to the concept of of a MGB...

So, human beings; do we have free will? Yes or no?

Or better yet, if you are an atheist, are you freely choosing not to believe in God? Is that a free choice on your part? Yes, or no?

That question is preliminary to your objection.

Since I am an agnostic atheist this is a useless question because I am not constrained by MGBs or gods, so have no logic issues to avoid as you do. But since you asked, I will tell you that I don't know for sure. There is research on both sides of the matter, and it is not conclusive if free will does exist, or if everything we do is just a matter of chemical reactions and quantum fluctuations that are really responsible for the so called "choices" we make. But again, this has nothing to do with your MGB not being able to have free will.

Your god can't seem to do much of anything given all its omni powers...

We will see about that. Please answer the above questions.

Please solve the dilemmas you've created. Oh wait you can't, nevermind. This thread is over...

No, you put the MGB in this scenario. The Bible puts the MGB (your god) in this scenario. I didn't list what this thing can do, you did and the bible did. The claims being made about the properties and abilities of the MGB are logically absurd. The MGB/god creature cannot possibly exist.

The scenario is a MGB possessing the attribute of omniscient. There isn't anything wrong with that. The issue is when the objector places God's omniscient into logically absurd paradoxes, which is what you've done.

There are no internal contradictions regarding the attributes of God.

Omniscience with the other "attributes of god" IS the paradox Kingdom. Not certain situations involving it. The very claim of that ability is logically absurd, as my examples have attested to. It's ridiculous that you think that a god being could still be omniscient when all it takes is one example to show how it cannot be true with the other attributes. You think a god is all knowing except when it can't be all knowing? LOL!

And, naturally, your bible claims these things true, which is impossible.

Except as I already explained the MGB can't have free will and therefore can't choose to do anything. Free will must be a logical absurdity, eh?

Please explain, why in the free throw shooting scenario, does God not have the freedom to freely choose to miss a shot?

If the god MGB critter knows all (as you claim), then it already knows before it starts shooting free throws with you what shots it will make and which shots it won't. It can't "choose" to miss a shot that it already knows it will make. If it could then it can't be all knowing, because it didn't already know that the outcome would change. Your critter can only do what it already knows, or else it isn't all knowing. So there is no free will, no ability to choose, for anything it does for it's entire existence because it "knows all". I hope I gave you a better explanation here.

Ahh, but we all notice you fail to describe, in technicolorly detail, what it is I fail to understand. Please explain to us how something maximally great can exist everywhere in something that is no longer maximally great. I'm all ears...

You said "If it exists everywhere then part of its existence isn't maximally great now"...and I basically said that based on that quote, you apparently don't know what maximal greatness means.

The quote doesn't even make sense.

Try reading the whole thing instead of removing part of one sentence out of it and trying to understand it that way. That's like going straight to page 4 of the instructions to build a swing set and then wonder why nothing makes sense...

Except it had to miss that free throw, because it already knew it was going to miss that free throw. No choice there. Solve the dilemma.

This is related to the questions I asked above. Please answer those questions.

Done, please be sure to solve the dilemma next time.

Except for all the illogical contradiction of it, which I have detailed out for you multiple times above and in previous posts, which you have not rectified.

I will rectify once you answer the questions.

Wonderful.

I've also explained to you that just because something is conceivable doesn't make it possible

And I've also explained to you that the above statement is true only with contingent propositions, not necessary propositions. We are almost 30 pages into the thread and you still aren't differentiating between contingent propositions, and necessary propositions, DESPITE the fact that over and over again, I've explained why the distinction needs to be made (also in the OP).

Which has nothing to do with your conceivable angle, because your conceivable angle is all wrong (explained earlier in this post again). Since you are in the necessary mood, maybe you could finally get around to telling me why a MGB is necessary...

Yet, below you said pointed out that I am "repeating" myself. Well, that is why I have to.

You have to because you keep dodging questions and avoiding dilemmas that your own claims have created. It's like a merry-go-round and dodge ball at the same...

, and gave an example of that (it was either a square circle or an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, maybe even both now that I think about it).
It appears you are repeating yourself and running around in a circle a little bit.

I am repeating myself, because I am talking to different people and saying the same things over and over again. Glad you noticed.

Just talking about our conversation, Kingdom. I appreciate that you are replying to so many different people however. I do credit you for that.

And I did address your unstoppable force/immovable object...I addressed it by saying that it may not be possible for a MGB to create such things, due to the logical impossibility of it...and that was an easy response to what you thought was a difficult objection.

But the list of things it can't possibly create includes the universe, free will, evil (and a whole range of other non-good emotions), imperfection, and so on. So it is not possible for it to be the creator of this universe and all it contains.

The premise is rejected.

That was not my point. If there is an all good god creature that exists everywhere all the time, how can evil exist in its existence?

I don't believe the existence of evil is incompatible with a omnibenovelent being.

Is there a logical reason for this belief, or are you just avoiding another dilemma?

(Not to mention how a maximally great all good being even makes something that can be evil (us) when it changed its perfect existence by creating an imperfect world)...

I don't believe it is possible for God to create human beings with free will and there not be the potential for evil. God could have created humans perfect, but if he did, there would be no free will.

God can't create free will remember, it is all knowing! God can't create imperfection as a perfect being, and it can't exist everywhere all at once as a perfect being if there is imperfection in part of its "everywhere"! Your belief doesn't really matter at this point...

If the goal was to allow free human beings to live, then the potential for evil was always there. There is no way to have one without the other.

Now you are slipping a little Christian dogma in here, because you assume humans with free will has to mean evil will happen (not that that the all knowing can hand out free will let's not forget).

I don't envy the work you've got ahead of you....

Light work.

Well, when you skip all the hard parts like you did I'm not surprised that you don't feel very expended. Dodging doesn't use a lot of brain energy...

[Artie]

Oh I just got it... you have defined a MGB to be a being present everywhere. And to be present everywhere the being has to exist in the first place. So because you have defined a MGB to be an existing being a MGB can't fail to exist or it wouldn't be a MGB as you have defined it. Very clever.

I can define you, Artie, as "being present everywhere"...but if it isn't possible for you to exist everywhere, then I guess it doesn't really matter how you were defined, does it?

You can define into existence a being called Artie and say this being has the property of existing everywhere. You

No, it doesn't. So if that line of reasoning won't work with you, why think it works with this argument?

It doesn't. This just goes with the typical "you are defining God into existence" nonsense that makes up about 70% of the objections to the argument. Not only are these objections demonstrably false...but they are also demonstrably false.

LOL.

You have defined a MGB as a being that is present everywhere. To be present everywhere it has to exist.

[Artie]

Oh I just got it... you have defined a MGB to be a being present everywhere. And to be present everywhere the being has to exist in the first place. So because you have defined a MGB to be an existing being a MGB can't fail to exist or it wouldn't be a MGB as you have defined it. Very clever.

I can define you, Artie, as "being present everywhere"...but if it isn't possible for you to exist everywhere, then I guess it doesn't really matter how you were defined, does it?

No, it doesn't. So if that line of reasoning won't work with you, why think it works with this argument?

It doesn't. This just goes with the typical "you are defining God into existence" nonsense that makes up about 70% of the objections to the argument. Not only are these objections demonstrably false...but they are also demonstrably false.

LOL.

"The victorious modal ontological argument of Plantinga 1974 goes roughly as follows: Say that an entity possesses maximal excellence if and only if it is omnipotent, omnscient, and morally perfect. Say, further, that an entity possesses maximal greatness if and only if it possesses maximal excellence in every possible world"that is, if and only if it is necessarily existent and necessarily maximally excellent. Then consider the following argument:

There is a possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.
(Hence) There is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.

Under suitable assumptions about the nature of accessibility relations between possible worlds, this argument is valid: from it is possible that it is necessary that p, one can infer that it is necessary that p. Setting aside the possibility that one might challenge this widely accepted modal principle, it seems that opponents of the argument are bound to challenge the acceptability of the premise.

And, of course, they do. Let's just run the argument in reverse.

There is no entity which possesses maximal greatness.
(Hence) There is no possible world in which there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness.

Plainly enough, if you do not already accept the claim that there is an entity which possesses maximal greatness, then you won't agree that the first of these arguments is more acceptable than the second. So, as a proof of the existence of a being which posseses maximal greatness, Plantinga's argument seems to be a non-starter.

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Plantinga himself agrees: the victorious modal ontological argument is not a proof of the existence of a being which possesses maximal greatness. But how, then, is it victorious? Plantinga writes: Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premise, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion (Plantinga 1974, 221).

It is pretty clear that Plantinga's argument does not show what he claims that it shows."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontol ... #PlaOntArg

[rikuoamero]

Kingdom, if someone uses the MOA to support their claim that their god exists BUT explicitly says that their god had NOTHING to do with resurrecting Jesus (as in, they don't believe it happened), would you accept their usage of the MOA?

[Bust Nak]

1) Claiming that is what Christians believe.

I mentioned this because you people were acting like the definition of God that I gave came out of left field or something. This is the traditional definition of the Judeo-Christian God...not something I just came up with.

So you are saying that was not meant to be support for P1, just incidental detail? Good. Strike that from the list.

I was wrong for assuming that you all would go along with..however, I think that I am accurate in my assessment; if anyone had asked any of you is it possible that the Judeo-Christian God (MGB) existed prior to the argument that I laid out, I think the majority of you would have given an undoubted "yes".

Well, some would, that's because the Judeo-Christian God is considered contingent. What's more, many would still accept that it is possible for the Judeo-Christian God (MGB) to existed after they have seen this argument, as long as it remains a contingent being.

Either way, that is not support for P1 now, is it? Strike that from the list too.

3) Pointing out that some atheists did in fact just went along with it.

Cuz they did.

And how that supports the truth of P1? Could I strike that from the list?

4) Questioning if we have any good reason to deny P1.

If you do, then present it.

Already done, but that's besides the point, you are supposed to be the one supporting it, it's not for us to disprove it. Strike that from the list.

I wouldn't say "support"...more like "corroborate". The MOA doesn't need "support" from the KCA or vice versa...but it is corroborated by it.

Okay, so that is not supposed to be support P1. Strike that from the list. What exactly are you left with?...

I already stated that the reason P1 is true is because based on the definition of a MGB.

... Defining God into existence. That's what.

there is no logical contradiction based on the definition. The concept of a MGB is internally coherent, which is why a MGB can be easily conceived.

Is it? Prove that you are not conceiving a contingent being, thinking it necessary by mistake.

The concept of a MGB is not absurd...it doesn't defy logic...therefore, it is possible. The only way P1 would be false is if one can point out a logical absurdity within the definition...which hasn't happened yet.

I have argued that it is a logical absurdity because it contradict other stuff. But that's besides the point - the entire thing is based on defining God as a necessary being.

Well, I guess we will have to wait until you post that thread for me to demolish the argument.

That's a red herring. I've already told you the mere fact that we have appealed to the problem of evil, is enough to demonstrate that we have long been arguing against the possibility of God. Whether we were successful in doing so, is irrelevant. Address my actual point.

It is an actual factual.

Evidence says otherwise. It is indisputable that we have denied the possibility of a necessary God before you join this forum, we had the same thing last year, look at the link of the old thread.

Plus it's pretty clear that we atheists in general have been denying the possibility of a necessary God for millennia. re: problem of evil.

I am using the amount of arguments in this context to be synonymous with the amount of evidence on each side...in other words, the preponderance of evidence.

And I am saying that based on the preponderance of evidence, theism is giving atheism a good ole' fashioned spanking.

Again, irrelevant. The mere fact that we appealed to the problem of evil, is enough to prove my point. We have been saying God is impossible long before anyone thought of the MOA.

I can and I did.

Well, tried and failed anyway. Care to aim higher?

Oh, I see. And to your credit, I have to admit that I've seen some versions of the MOA that have had the definition of God in the actual syllogism.

And make its flaw all the more obvious.

Actually, now that I think about it...you notice that in the beginning of the thread, there were a few posts that said something along the lines of "just because a MGB is possible, that doesn't mean that it exist.".

Do you remember all of those? Well, it is almost as if they were granting P1 to be true, doesn't it? Hmmm.

So, that is why P1 wasn't explained, because of just that.

Sure I remember those posts, I've responded to them myself. Well, that's not good enough. That some people went along with it, is not a reason to think P1 true.

And to restate one of my side points - if they are saying it "doesn't mean that it exist," they are actually rejecting your definition of God, step 3 is not valid with a contingent being.

Again, that is why you read the entire post, not just one sentence or paragraph. It is in there, just not where YOU'D like it to be.

The fact that it is there at all is the problem - use a different definition and the argument falls apart - P1 would become indisputably false, and step 3 would be non sequitur, all because of a definition. You are defining God into existence.

Nowhere have I said nor implied such a thing.

Okay, can you then confirm that the actual support you ever gave, was the definition of God provided?...

No, I don't think that those are sufficient...I guess that is why I never said any of it in the first place.

...Because as I see it all you are left with is a definition to support P1. Look back to page 3, nothing has changed since then. You are guilty of trying to define God into existence.

Yeah, becuz you know the implications of a true P1 in this argument, don't you?

Incorrect, while I do happen to know the implications of a true P1, that's is not the reason why I am rejecting it. The actual reason for rejecting it, is that it is questioning begging.

The KCA corroborates the MOA and vice versa.

Okay, so I guess you are retracting your claim that "If the KCA is false, then the MOA is false?"

I eat the problem of evil for breakfast.

I've already pointed out that is a red herring. The mere fact that we used the problem of evil, is enough to point that that we would have rejected P1 regardless of the validity of the MOA.

If the shoe fits..

Well that's a moot point because the shoe doesn't fit.

But I did.

You merely tried.

That analogy won't work...because even if I answered "I don't know" to B, that has absolutely no relevance to whether the syllogism is true or false.

Correct, but that wouldn't convince anybody now, would it?

The question of "why" is about as useless as a mouth-less dog in a frisbee contest.

So go ahead and let the whole forum know explicitly, that the carrot argument works as a deductive proof, let us all know that it is useless questioning the definition and you accept that John is a quarterback.

I see what you did there, too. P1 has now been supported.

With nothing but a mere definition and your assertions. Do better.

See above. I mean, not that it has been unsupported all the way through almost 30 pages...but since you keep asking for it as if it hasn't...there it is.

I saw the supposed "support" the first time round - I responded to it literally in my first post - You cannot definite God into existence. Nothing you have said since have changed that.

Looking in hindsight...it didn't. LOL.

How about this one: "MGB is defined as a married bachelor, as such 1) MGB is internally inconsistent; 2) what is internally inconsistent does not exist, cannot exist; 3) therefore MGB does not exist."

The syllogism is obviously valid. P1 is trivially true based on the definition of a MGB, so much so that I need to give an explanation. Checkmate. 100% deductive proof that God doesn't exist, or is it?

Perhaps they should read between the fine print before they go signing their lives away LOL.

Because once you grant P1, whewww, you are locked in to the point of no return.

Or they can retract it and reject P1 like some did?

And?

And I have proved that the MGB is impossible, thus refuting P1 of the MOA.

Then P1 would be false.

Exactly.

but it isn't false, it is true.

I am afraid it is too late for you, because once you grant P2 of my proof, you are locked in to the point of no return. Perhaps you should read between the fine print before you go signing you life away, LOL?

Kinda ironic if you ask me, my proof is far easier to follow than the MOA for the lay person.

I need direct refutations of the premises, not some hand-me-down counter arguments that really don't accurately reflect or any any way undermine the actual MOA.

And you got one, well more than one. But here was mine, repeated here for your convenience,

For all X:
1) If there is a possible world where a being X does not exist then X does not have necessary existence.
2) A world that has no sentient beings is one such possible world where the being X does not exist.
3) Therefore X does not have necessary existence.

Just so you don't miss it again. It is for ALL X, anything and everything. Your MGB, if one exists at all, cannot be a necessary being.

[Artie]

Being a maximally great being, all of those great-making properties are maxed out to the degree at which there isn't anything left to add. It is virtually impossible to think of a "greater being" than one that is all-knowing, all powerful, present everywhere, and the ultimate source of goodness.

A Minimally Great Being would then be a being that is present nowhere. Not existing anywhere. A non-existent being. So what you are actually saying is that a being existing everywhere is greater than a being existing nowhere (a non-existent being.) Which shows that you have taken an imaginary being existing nowhere in the real world and given it the property of being present everywhere in the real world and magically defined it into existence.

[Artie]

Kingdom,

I can imagine a being. I can imagine that this being has all the properties you describe. Please use your own words explaining why this being would have to exist in the real world.

[Willum]

[Replying to Artie]

Excellent Artie, but on a point of order:
He didn't magically define it into existence.
He logically defined it into existence.

V/R