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?

[wiploc]

I'm guessing you dug that quote from under one of those atheist sites that attempts to debunk the KCA, right?

No.

I read Plantinga's book. I saw the obvious error in his argument. I am explaining that error to you in my own words.

[wiploc]

Necessary gods are not possible.

Easy to say, difficult to articulate why.

No, not difficult at all.

A necessary god exists in all possible worlds, by definition.

But some possible worlds don't have gods.

It would be a contradiction for a god to exist in godless worlds; that would be impossible.

Therefore, necessary gods (gods that exist in all possible worlds) are not possible.

That's easy to articulate.

If you start your argument by getting us to admit that some gods are possible in P1, and don't get around to mentioning that your particular god is impossible until P3, then you are forcing people to backpedal.

The entire OP was geared towards defining and giving an argument of the MGB as identified in the argument.

If you admitted that the existence of such a being is possible, then the rest takes care of itself.

It isn't until the realization of the implication of P1 that people began to backpedal.

Right, because you didn't define the MGB until P3. Very tricksy. So, once people realize what you were talking about back in P1, they have to backpedal. They have to deny either P1 or P3, since both cannot be true.

And there is also the matter of the ambiguity of the word "possible" in P1. Many people will say something is possible if they don't know whether it is true. It is not until P2 that you specify that what you meant by "possible" back in P1 is "Exists in at least one possible world."

So then people have to say something like, "Oh, if that's what you meant by 'possible,' then P1 isn't true after all."

There's nothing shameful about someone studying your argument until he learns where the tricks are.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 396 by For_The_Kingdom]

Keyword: "Anymore".

So you realized that by admitting that the existence of God is possible (P1), you are thereby granting the actual existence of God...so to negate that, you simply deny the possibility of God altogether.

FtK, I hope you realise that (in my eyes and in the eyes of others) this might as well be you admitting that the strength of P1 rests entirely on the atheist who agrees with you either not paying attention to your definition of possible or you not having defined it.
Most of us here are used to thinking of the word 'possible' in contingent terms. Most people are, I would imagine. So if someone like yourself comes along and uses the word 'possible' to mean 'necessarily existing/cannot fail to exist', we have to be paying very close attention, otherwise we'd be agreeing with something that ordinarily we'd never agree to.
Your entire argument rests on a 'Gotcha' moment. This makes you look dishonest. Now I'll grant that you laid out what you were doing in the preface of the OP, but it's still a sleight of hand even if you show us what you are doing.

So answer me this.
How is what you are doing here ANY different to saying
"A loser says what"
"Sorry ,what?
"Aha! You said what, therefore you're a loser!"?

[Bust Nak]

I didn't win the debate, yet it is YOU who are admitting to agreeing with a premise of the argument, and after seeing its implication, you then changed YOUR MIND.

You: I agree, the existence of God is possible, but that doesn't mean that God exists.

Me: If the existence of God is possible, then God must exist.

You: Well, I change my mind, the existence of God isn't possible.

That is it, in a nut shell.

I propose a more accurate summary.

A: I agree the existence of God is possible, but that doesn't mean that God exists.

You: If the existence of God is possible, then God must exist.

A: That doesn't follow. A contingent God only need to exist in one possible world.

You: Well I defined God as necessary in the preamble.

A: The existence of that sort of gods isn't possible.

[Danmark]

i.e. That's what Christians believe. Not good enough.

Forgive us Christians for believing in true propositions.

That is just a personal comment that fails to advance the argument. It is a overly broad and ultimately false comment. There is nothing 'true' about your ontological argument or its propositions.

[wiploc]

I didn't win the debate, yet it is YOU who are admitting to agreeing with a premise of the argument, and after seeing its implication, you then changed YOUR MIND.

You: I agree, the existence of God is possible, but that doesn't mean that God exists.

Me: If the existence of God is possible, then God must exist.

You: Well, I change my mind, the existence of God isn't possible.

That is it, in a nut shell.

I propose a more accurate summary.

A: I agree the existence of God is possible, but that doesn't mean that God exists.

You: If the existence of God is possible, then God must exist.

A: That doesn't follow. A contingent God only need to exist in one possible world.

You: Well I defined God as necessary in the preamble.

A: The existence of that sort of gods isn't possible.

Well said. And Plantinga probably knows what he's doing. He could have removed the ambiguity and confusion by rearranging his premises. He could have said:

P1: An MGB is something that can't exist at all unless it exists in every possible world (including the possible worlds in which MGBs don't exist).

P2: For the purposes of this argument, when we say that something "possibly exists" we mean that it definitely exists in at least one possible world.

P3: Now, bearing in mind the information in P1 and P2, this third premise is that an MGB "possibly exists."

Plantinga's argument is one that cannot be appreciated except by those who do not understand it.

I know that Plantinga wrote a whole densely-worded book to obscure the flaws in his argument, but even just the small change recommended above would, I suspect, have lent the argument enough clarity that it would have no significant following.

[Danmark]

I didn't win the debate, yet it is YOU who are admitting to agreeing with a premise of the argument, and after seeing its implication, you then changed YOUR MIND.

You: I agree, the existence of God is possible, but that doesn't mean that God exists.

Me: If the existence of God is possible, then God must exist.

You: Well, I change my mind, the existence of God isn't possible.

That is it, in a nut shell.

I propose a more accurate summary.

A: I agree the existence of God is possible, but that doesn't mean that God exists.

You: If the existence of God is possible, then God must exist.

A: That doesn't follow. A contingent God only need to exist in one possible world.

You: Well I defined God as necessary in the preamble.

A: The existence of that sort of gods isn't possible.

Excellent summary! "Well I defined God as necessary in the preamble" provides a great example of circular reasoning: simply defining something in a way to make it 'true,' then acting as if such silliness has an effect on reality.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Because the argument wasn't clear enough for them - hence my earlier remark on tricking people.

Everything is in the OP...so therefore, if anyone is STILL tricked, then it is a self inflicted wound.

Whether it applies to anyone or not, it is still not support for your premise. You can't say something is true because person XYZ believes it.

I agree, I can't...which is why I never did in the first place.

an affirming the consequent fallacy. ((A->B) & B) does not imply A.

Ok...so explain how, if it is possible for 7 to be divided equally into 893488348832848374973598743987348384374...if it is possible, how can it be disproven?

P1 is false, because it is not possible for God as defined to exist. But that's beside the point

So basically, you are giving me an unsupported assertion, and just leaving it at that? LOL.

you haven't justified P1 with anything other than your assertions and that's not good enough.

Lets take it slow...what are my reasons for believing P1 is true? Tell me the assertion.

Rhetorical question backfired, because that's exactly what the argument is. That's why "Artie!!!" applies to the MOA.

Artie fails the P1 test. God doesn't...and if you think he does...then simply lay some ice on me...tell me why.

You define God as necessary, therefore, God exists.

I defined Artie as necessary, too...yet Artie failed the P1 test, so obviously, how Artie was defined is indepedent of whether or not it is possible for Artie to necessarily exist..two different things.

You are saying "but God failed the P1 test, too"....yet I can articulate to you WHY Artie failed the P1 test, but you can't tell me why God fails the P1 test.

The Modal Ontological Argument is not valid without that definition. Which is why I said to you all the way back on page 3, you can't define God into existence.

How God was defined has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is possible for God to exist.

Well, no we can't, not if we are using your reasoning. That's why I said your reasoning isn't good enough to for Artie and it isn't good enough for God.

And that is why I pointed out above that the difference between Artie & God as it relates to this argument is simple; I can DEMONSTRATE why it isn't possible for Artie to exist necessarily, and thus why he fails the P1 test right from jump street.

In other words, we know Artie is not a necessary being based on the evidence AGAINST him being a necessary being.

Now, if you can do the same thing with God, then go right ahead. Until then, you are making unsupported assertions because you simply are aware of what granting P1 would mean for your worldview...which is your problem, not mines.

You are moving the goal post, that isn't the question being asked. The question is whether atheists have denied the possibility of God before you came along and posted this thread... and the answer is yes.

Oh, so I guess the question becomes; are their reasons for denying the possibility of God grounded by sound/valid logic and reasoning...and the answer to that is no.

Right, which means someone who claimed that people only started to play basketball as a respond to Michael Jordan, is factually wrong.

Sure they are, just like anyone who claimed that I said anything along the lines of "the MOA begins and ends with me"....is factually wrong.

Are you forgetting that you questioned our honesty when you were informed that atheists have denied the possibility of God long before the MOA was first conceived, and long before you explained the MOA to us?

Yeah, but to my knowledge most atheists/agnostics deny the existence of God not because of the evidence against him, but because they aren't convinced by the evidence for him.

Sure, you do have some out there that think that they have good arguments against God's existence...but from personal experience, I never encountered many like that.

Most atheists only want to attack the evidence FOR God, not present evidence AGAINST God.

That is just my experience.

First of all, we didn't have to, because you have failed to justified P1.

In the OP, I didn't. In thread, I did.

Secondly, have you counted how many of us have gave you argument for denying P1?

About a good two people. Most of the time, I've been dealing with these cheesy "counter-arguments" coming from you guys...rather than the denial of P1.

I've just told you, your assertions aren't good enough. While a generic god may well be rational and coherent, don't just tell us the concept of a necessary God is rational and coherent, prove it.

If it isn't rational and coherent, it can't be conceived. The maximally great being can be conceived, therefore, the concept of a MGB is rational, and coherent.

Now, of course you don't believe the concept of a MGB is rational...but that is something that you've yet to demonstrate.

1) It's up to you to prove that it is coherent.

If I can conceive of it, it is coherent.

2) I have already proven that a necessary God is impossible.

You have? I musta missed that part..

Incorrect. Assertions backed by a deductive proof.

Where?

Of course I can, but that's besides the point

Besides the point? That is THE point. I can prove that it is possible for Artie to exist necessarily, and you can't do the same with God. That is just the fact of the matter.

You were the one that is claiming that a MGB isn't necessarily possible just as Artie isn't necessarily possible...well, if that were the case, then why am I able to demonstrate Artie's unnecessary existence but you are unable to do the same with a MGB?

- you, as the presenter of the argument, were supposed to do the legwork, not I. As your audience, I merely have to question what you say.

Unless you were sleeping under a rock since the thread was created, you would know that the legwork was done.

Okay, just note that it's quite a different thing from what you actually wrote, "if the KCA is false, then the MOA is false."

But theoretically, what I said is true...if the KCA is false, then so is the MOA. The point I was making is that even if we have the MOA with no KNOWLEDGE of the KCA, the MOA would still hold true.

It would have been more of a "the KCA supports the MOA, but we just don't know it", kind of thing.

I will do better, I will repeat it here for you:

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 thrice. It is for ALL X, anything and everything. Your MGB, if one exists at all, cannot be a necessary being.

I still don't know what "X" is in the argument.

Whether a syllogism is non sequitur or not, is to do with its validity. I think you would find the argument there, is quite valid. The term you are looking for, is unsound.

Either way, the argument fails.

Incorrect. Nothing I said assumes or requires Artie is the same thing as MGB.

You pulled a "if you understand why Artie's existence isn't necessarily possible, you will also see why a MGB's existence is necessarily possible" kind of thing.

I only showed that they are not equal..apples and oranges.

A chair isn't the same thing as Socrates either, and yet the two following statements are still true:

If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal.
If this chair is a man then this chair is mortal.

Ok, so..

If I exist, then I am here.
If you exist, then you are here.

How is that in any way equivalent to you conflating two different concepts of a necessarily contingent being (Artie), to a possibly necessarily being (God)?

Incorrect, step 3 requires God being necessary. Without a necessary God, step 3 is non sequitur. You were informed of this pages ago, which is why the I said the MOA reduces to "because I DEFINE God as necessary, therefore, God exists."

Um, Newsflash: The argument begins with P1, and the truth value of P3 is based upon the truth value of P1..kinda like if you read a book, chapter 3 of the book stems from everything that happened in chapter 1...that is normally how it works, right?

If P1 is true, the P3 is true regardless...as I keep saying, everything in the argument just flows naturally...and to disprove the argument, you have to start from the base...P1.

Not only that, but again, Artie. I can't define Artie into a necessary existence, so why would I be able to define a MGB into one? I can't, because how a being is defined is independent of whether the definition is true or can be true.

So all of this continual "you can't define God" into existence is straw man tactics...either it is possible for a MGB to exist, or it isn't. If it is, then don't blame the definition...blame the truth value of the definition.

Sure the truth of a statement does not depend on the why, but you are a duty to answer the latter, you need to justify your premises.

And I did. I said that whatever can be conceived is possibly true. I can't conceive of something that isn't possibly true, like squared circles and one-sided sticks. But I can conceive of a MGB..therefore, the possibility of a MGB is true.

Well I don't think a person who not only refuses to justify their premises, but go that one step extra to reprimand others for demanding justification for said premises, is in any position to offer help to others. I will however do my best to help you understand the importance of justifying your own premise.[/

I gave reasons why P1 is true...that is all that I am required to do. Questions of "why is God necessary" is about as useless as the "s" in island.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 414 by For_The_Kingdom]

Everything is in the OP...so therefore, if anyone is STILL tricked, then it is a self inflicted wound.

Is this an admittance to doing a trick? Granted, you did lay everything out in the preface and didn't hide anything, but your responses to other people's responses did still smack of a "Haha! Gotcha! You said God is possible!"

I agree, I can't...which is why I never did in the first place.

You sorta did. You used as a definition for God what Christians believe of God. It's there in the preface of the OP.

Lets take it slow...what are my reasons for believing P1 is true? Tell me the assertion.

That's what WE want to know! You know all those requests from us for you to justify P1?

How God was defined has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is possible for God to exist.

So if I define the word God to mean a human who lives on the surface of the sun, that has nothing to do with whether or not it is possible for that God to exist?

I can DEMONSTRATE why it isn't possible for Artie to exist necessarily, and thus why he fails the P1 test right from jump street.

That's precisely the point. Artie satisfies the MOA as long as you don't look for actual evidence. Once you do, you find out that Artie cannot exist and therefore, despite satisfying the MOA, he is non-existent.
You do not look for evidence for God. You put God through the MOA, and then go around saying "See! God exists!" without any actual evidence to back it up.

In other words, we know Artie is not a necessary being based on the evidence AGAINST him being a necessary being.

And we don't know the same for the god you talk about. We have Artie satisfying the MOA, but being actually non-existent in the real world thanks to evidence. We then put God through the MOA (and as long as we ignore the unjustified P1), satisfies the MOA, but no evidence is presented to show that God exists in the real world.

Now, if you can do the same thing with God, then go right ahead. Until then, you are making unsupported assertions

Says the person who when requested multiple times to support P1, outright refused to.

Yeah, but to my knowledge most atheists/agnostics deny the existence of God not because of the evidence against him, but because they aren't convinced by the evidence for him.

Both actually, at least in my case. There is much evidence against God, and what is presented in favour of God by people such as yourself is woefully lack-lustre.

Most atheists only want to attack the evidence FOR God, not present evidence AGAINST God.

Which, technically, is all they need do. The people who believe in God have the burden of proof.

In the OP, I didn't. In thread, I did.

Care to refresh our memories? I don't remember you ever doing that; in fact, I remember you outright refusing to do so? If you did earlier in the thread, link please.

I still don't know what "X" is in the argument.

X = sentient beings. In that argument, it is mentioned that there is a possible world with no sentient beings. Therefore, any beings that are sentient that you care to name (oh, I dunno, like God?) don't exist in that world, hence they don't exist in every world. Thus...they are not necessary beings.

But I can conceive of a MGB..therefore, the possibility of a MGB is true.

And unless you outright tell the person you say that to that possibility here = necessary existence, they won't think that you're saying "I can imagine an MGB, therefore it exists". They'll think you're saying "I can imagine an MGB, it may exist, or it may not exist".

[Bust Nak]

Everything is in the OP...so therefore, if anyone is STILL tricked, then it is a self inflicted wound.

I'll give you that much. People needs to be more careful before granting premises.

I agree, I can't...which is why I never did in the first place.

Great, so it is irrelevant how many atheists granted P1.

Ok...so explain how, if it is possible for 7 to be divided equally into 893488348832848374973598743987348384374...if it is possible, how can it be disproven?

Assume the opposite then demonstrate that it leads necessarily to a contradiction? Not exactly sure what you are implying here.

So basically, you are giving me an unsupported assertion, and just leaving it at that? LOL.

No, that is not what I am doing, I am informing you that even if I couldn't prove P1 false, it still doesn't make P1 true. To claim otherwise is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Lets take it slow...what are my reasons for believing P1 is true? Tell me the assertion.

Your reason for believe P1 is true is that the concept of a necessary God is coherent, therefore possible. The assertion I am asking you to support, is the part in bold.

Artie fails the P1 test.

So does God.

God doesn't...and if you think he does...then simply lay some ice on me...tell me why.

It's up to you to prove God pass P1, not for me to demonstrate otherwise. Besides, I did exactly that with my proof.

I defined Artie as necessary, too...yet Artie failed the P1 test, so obviously, how Artie was defined is indepedent of whether or not it is possible for Artie to necessarily exist..

Same applies to God.

You are saying "but God failed the P1 test, too"....yet I can articulate to you WHY Artie failed the P1 test, but you can't tell me why God fails the P1 test.

Loaded question cannot be answered.

How God was defined has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is possible for God to exist.

Incorrect. Recall my counter-example if you will, I defined God as a married bachelor, that definition made it impossible for such a god to exist, trivially so.

And that is why I pointed out above that the difference between Artie & God as it relates to this argument is simple; I can DEMONSTRATE why it isn't possible for Artie to exist necessarily, and thus why he fails the P1 test right from jump street.

In other words, we know Artie is not a necessary being based on the evidence AGAINST him being a necessary being.

And we know God is not a necessary being based on a proof against him being a necessary being.

Now, if you can do the same thing with God, then go right ahead. Until then...

What do you mean until...? Save your trash talk and deal with my proof.

Oh, so I guess the question becomes; are their reasons for denying the possibility of God grounded by sound/valid logic and reasoning...

The answer is yes.

Sure they are, just like anyone who claimed that I said anything along the lines of "the MOA begins and ends with me"....is factually wrong.

That wasn't my accusation. I accused you of claiming we wouldn't have denied God's possibility before you brought the MOA to our attention.

Yeah, but to my knowledge most atheists/agnostics deny the existence of God not because of the evidence against him, but because they aren't convinced by the evidence for him.

Sure, you do have some out there that think that they have good arguments against God's existence...but from personal experience, I never encountered many like that.

Most atheists only want to attack the evidence FOR God, not present evidence AGAINST God.

That is just my experience.

That's to do with God's actual existence in this world, not the same thing as God's possibility. God can be non-existent and still be possible, this should be pretty trivial for someone who understands modal logic.

In the OP, I didn't. In thread, I did.

By claiming a necessary God is a coherent concept. Not good enough.

About a good two people. Most of the time, I've been dealing with these cheesy "counter-arguments" coming from you guys...rather than the denial of P1.

Well, at least you didn't outright say zero.

If it isn't rational and coherent, it can't be conceived. The maximally great being can be conceived, therefore, the concept of a MGB is rational, and coherent.

If I can conceive of it, it is coherent.

That's classic question begging fallacy. You are just moving it one step back, now you have to prove a MGB can be conceived.

You have? I musta missed that part..

I know, which is why I keep repeating it for you.

Besides the point? That is THE point.

No, the point is you cannot prove that a necessary God is possible, it is not up to us to prove that a necessary God is impossible.

I can prove that it is possible for Artie to exist necessarily, and you can't do the same with God. That is just the fact of the matter.

I am guessing there is a typo there.

You were the one that is claiming that a MGB isn't necessarily possible just as Artie isn't necessarily possible...well, if that were the case, then why am I able to demonstrate Artie's unnecessary existence but you are unable to do the same with a MGB?

Again loaded question cannot be answered.

Unless you were sleeping under a rock since the thread was created, you would know that the legwork was done.

Apart from the most important bit. Proving that a necessary God is possible.

But theoretically, what I said is true...if the KCA is false, then so is the MOA. The point I was making is that even if we have the MOA with no KNOWLEDGE of the KCA, the MOA would still hold true.

It would have been more of a "the KCA supports the MOA, but we just don't know it", kind of thing.

Okay, still not sure what you mean exactly but I'll take your word for it. This isn't all that important.

I still don't know what "X" is in the argument.

A placeholder, you can swap any for X. I suggest you substitute X for MGB to get:

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

Hence my bolded statement: Your MGB, if one exists at all, cannot be a necessary being.

Either way, the argument fails.

Right, but using the right term is very important. I mean the MOA hinges on the term "necessary" after all.

You pulled a "if you understand why Artie's existence isn't necessarily possible, you will also see why a MGB's existence is necessarily possible" kind of thing.

I only showed that they are not equal.. apples and oranges.

If you understand why apples are fruits, you will also see why oranges are also fruits... Apples and oranges are similar in a way that is relevant to the argument, just as Artie and God is similar in a way that is relevant to my proof, despite them not being equal.

If I exist, then I am here.
If you exist, then you are here.

How is that in any way equivalent to you conflating two different concepts of a necessarily contingent being (Artie), to a possibly necessarily being (God)?

There is no conflating, look at your own example, you said: If I exist, then I am here. If you exist, then you are here. In stating that, have you in any way conflated Bust Nak with For_The_Kingdom?

Um, Newsflash: The argument begins with P1, and the truth value of P3 is based upon the truth value of P1..kinda like if you read a book, chapter 3 of the book stems from everything that happened in chapter 1...that is normally how it works, right?

Incorrect. The truth value of P3 depends solely on your definition, you could have swap the order of P1 with P3 and the argument would be just as valid (and just as unsound.) Pay particular attention to the fact that P3 is a conditional statement. Here is an analogy:

1) man(Socrates) -> mortal(Socrates)
2) man(Socrates)
3) mortal(Socrates)

Works just as well as:

1) man(Socrates)
2) man(Socrates) -> mortal(Socrates)
3) mortal(Socrates)

What's more, man(Socrates) -> mortal(Socrates) is still true even if Socrates is not a man. The truth value of 3) depends on 1) and 2) but the truth of the two premises do not depend on each other.

If P1 is true, the P3 is true regardless... as I keep saying, everything in the argument just flows naturally...and to disprove the argument, you have to start from the base...P1.

That just plain wrong, but I think we are finally making real progress. This misconception must be why you are so confident in the MOA. Fix this misconception and you would understanding why the MOA fails, fix this and you will understand why "Artie!!!" applies to God.

If you choose to answer just one thing in my post, this would be it - The truth value of P3 does not depends on the truth value of P1, but on God as a necessary being.

Not only that, but again, Artie. I can't define Artie into a necessary existence, so why would I be able to define a MGB into one? I can't, because how a being is defined is independent of whether the definition is true or can be true.

Exactly, which is why the argument fails. You CANNOT definite God into a necessary existence, that's what the argument tries to do.

So all of this continual "you can't define God" into existence is straw man tactics...either it is possible for a MGB to exist, or it isn't. If it is, then don't blame the definition...blame the truth value of the definition.

Isn't that the same thing? To blame a faulty definition is to blame the truth value of said definition.

And I did. I said that whatever can be conceived is possibly true. I can't conceive of something that isn't possibly true, like squared circles and one-sided sticks. But I can conceive of a MGB..therefore, the possibility of a MGB is true.

Same as above. Prove you can conceive of a MGB.

I gave reasons why P1 is true...that is all that I am required to do.

I am afraid you have to do more, because the reason you did give isn't question begging.

Questions of "why is God necessary" is about as useless as the "s" in island.

P3 depends on it. If God is not necessary, P3 is false.