You cannot meaningfully describe something in withouts and other negatives.  You are describing what eternity is not, you are not, describing what eternity is.

It is as describing blue by saying that it is not red, the statement may be true, however it does not actually describe blue, and is, in the end, of little use.

This is why I would assert that you can not conceive of god, as all of god's most striking and fundamental attributes are exclusively described in negatives.  god is 'endless', god is 'limitless' god is 'causeless'.  These are not descriptions of what god is, they are descriptions of what god is not, and this is indicative of an inability to truly form the conception you so cherish.  Instead you clothe your naked assertions in fancy sounding, lofty pseudo-philosophical terms which do not, actually, describe any entity, but merely obfuscate your lack of understanding of the nature of the entity you yourself claim to know, personally, and fundamentally.

Bitch.
 

Your quaint little backpedaling is hardly of any use or interest.

You have still admitted to an area where gods influence and nature does not fully permeate.  If god is infinite and all encompassing, then he must permeate through and be an aspect of everything, anything less and he is not infinite.  

If god permeates through everything and is the ultimate expression of existence, an absolute nature, then he must override the natures of all that he permeates, anything less and he is in essence weaker than that which her permeates, which has demonstrated itself to be able to override his nature.  

This thus makes god a limited entity and either not 'proven' by your little argument, or directly dis-proven by it.

I'm sorry if you are upset that I have dismantled your argument with your own argument, but your blind inability to admit this truth is of little consequence to me.

P.S. You still haven't described Eternity.

But, what if god IS a pink unicorn? One horn to rule them all..yes yes it all makes sense now!

So, in your view, "Eternal" means "existing in eternity" and "Eternity" means "where eternal things exist".

I'm glad you didn't come with a superficial explanation.

What? Don't be daft. God being possible but not necessarily extant does not imply contingence, just likelihood.

God being possible iff some such or other, is contingence, but that was not Bob's claim. The contingence implied in Bob's claim is purely epistemic.

ie I can say God may not exist because my knowing god exists is contingent on evidence. I'm not saying God is contingent, I'm just saying the likelihood of God existing lacks the evidentiary support upon which it is contingent.

I have indeed changed the 'domain of discourse', to something more comprehensive and useful than yours.

I am not trying to use the concepts of modal logic, which are not necessarily useful here.

I am still employing logic.

A 'permanent', fixed attribute of a specific 'possible' world is not necessarily an attribute which 'cannot be otherwise'. That is an arbitrary restriction you have imposed on the definition of 'fixed/permanent''. I am referring to attributes which cannot change with time, so are permanent, unchanging, unchangeable, within any specific 'world'.

There is no logical reason why a useful concept of 'possible world' cannot have such attributes, with each possible world having different sets of of such attributes. 

You have arbitrarily excluded this possibility from your set of 'possible worlds', which dramatically reduces the utility of the 'possible worlds' scenario.

This prevents us from considering different possible worlds in which, say, the laws of physics, or the Universal constants, are different.

You obviously don't wish to include such an option, since it destroys your pathetic excuse for an 'argument'.

You are still making the same fundamental error: get it thru your faith-befuddled brain that the concept of a fixed, unchangeable, entity or attribute does not logically require that that entity or attribute cannot be different in another possible world. It does not imply that it be capable of change, in itself.

Until you acknowledge this, it is indeed pointless to continue this discussion.

EDIT: To repeat, rephrase, for clarity and emphasis: the concept of an unchangeable, fixed thing is distinct from the concept of something which could not be otherwise.

'Contingent' refers to things which could have been different if the course of events, of history, within a specific world, a particular universal context, had followed a different path.

'Fixed' refers to things which are intrinsic, fundamental attributes of a specific 'possible world', which could be considered to define that world. Other 'possible  worlds' are those where there is a different set of such fixed attributes.

'Necessary' refers to attributes, laws, etc which logically must apply universally.

To justify asserting that some specific thing is 'necessary', using the 'possible worlds' argument, you have to assume, for the argument, that it is merely 'fixed', and then show that any 'world' in which it either does not exist, or differs in any way from one specific set of attributes, is intrinsically impossible, internally inconsistent.

The alternative approach is show that it logically follows from something like the LOI/LNC, as with any other logical absolute.

So very true.  If only more people understood this vital fact.  To many people today fall for the false teachings of the blue temporal unicorn while ignoring the True spiritual teachings of the one True pink unicorn!  Jesus must be crying up in heaven because we are ignoring his favorite mount.  Some day Jesus will come back riding on his majestic pink unicorn of TRUTH and all those blue unicorn heretics will KNOW BETTER!!!

Gaunilo already attempted this with his greatest conceivable island argument.

Any material thing, such as a unicorn, island, hot dog, etc., is incomplete by its very nature.  The force of the ontological argument is the fact that by virtue of God's ontological plenitude, it is self-contradictory to assert that he does not exist.

A unicorn is defined as being a horse with a horn on its head.  The very fact that it is a unicorn when it could have been, say, a zebra shows that it is ontologically incomplete.  After all, a unicorn would be composed of the same elementary particles as a zebra.  Why a unicorn instead of a zebra?

Unlike a material thing, God is defined as an ontologically complete being, from which it follows that he is the all encompassing source of being itself.  As such, it is not self-contradictory to say that God exists by logically necessity because to assert otherwise would substantiate that there is a reality and it cannot be accounted for.  Moreover, it would assert that there are sufficient conditions which would satisfy the non-existence of an ontologically complete being.

Even if you were to play games with semantics and say that an immaterial ontologically complete unicorn must exist, you would still arrive at a dead end because the moment you say that such a being is immaterial, there is no real reason to call such a being a unicorn. 

Sorry, but brilliant minds like Anselm, Plantinga, Hartshorne, and Goedel deserve a little more credit.  Come up with something better.

Godchild, have you tried actually studying logic?

It does not consist of a sequence of non-sequiturs and naked assertions, as you have just written.

Two major holes in this argument that I see are that,

1. God, being necessary, must necessarily exist in all possible (conceivable) worlds. -- is question begging.

If God is a necessarily true proposition then why construct any more argument? The very act of constructing the convoluted pile of sophist nonsense that follows is equivalent to open concession that this supporting proposition cannot be agreed on its own merit.  The MOA by it's very existence admits the fault of its own leading proposition and hence is just a big pile of smelly affirming the precedent.

and 2. The other main anchor of this argument -- if God is conceivable then God is possible -- which launches the determination that God is therefore possible. Is nothing more than handwaving over the conceivability of a deity. MOA rushes to assuming the agreement of the conceptual viability of a deity without pause to reflect on whether or how this is ever actually accomplished.

When he MOA asks, and presently furthermore, assumes, that God is agreed to be conceivable, is the tongue firmly in the cheek, F_Son? I mean, it might be that most people can conceive of a set of charateristics they might label "God" but is any one of them actually conceiving of God? what is it the MAO is actually entering into possibility via this assumed concession, anyway? Would anyone ever actually conceive of what truly could be God, or would they conceive primarily of what sits pleasantly with their personal religious sensibilities.

God is "conceivable", in the standard usage of that term, but we have no way to determine if any form of God is "possible". Some versions do seem to imply contradictions, so would appear to not be possible.

To construct a valid logical argument that God must exist would require demonstrating that the assumption that God does not exist leads to a contradiction.

If you define 'God' as 'that which is an essential precondition for the existence of our Universe' then that entity must exist. Or, more strictly, that at least one 'thing' in the category of "things capable of serving as a pre-condition for our universe" must exist.

However, that tells us nothing about the nature or attributes of "that which is necessary for the existence of our universe". It is just playing semantics. You have just invented another word or phrase for the "First Cause".

We do not have remotely enough knowledge to define any necessary, specific attributes of things in that category.

It doesn't even establish that there is only one possible 'cause'.

Demonstrating that "what 'caused' the Universe" must necessarily be sentient, benevolent, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc, ie, has any attributes other than "whatever is necessary to serve as a precondition for creating our universe" is the actual problem which is not addressed by any of the classic arguments. Of course, theologians have then gone on and attempted to show how those attributes are necessary, but those are the arguments that need to be examined - these FC and OA ideas are pointless by themselves.

The whole 'argument' amounts to the assertion that IF our universe could not simply appear from nothing, then 'something' must have 'caused' it, therefore that 'something' must have existed, since our universe exists.

Even if one denies that no 'something' can come from what is truly nothing, then that entails that 'something' must always have existed, but again, implies nothing about specific, necessary attributes of an eternal 'something'.

For example, a 'quantum foam' could certainly persist indefinitely, and trigger one or more 'Big Bang' events, without necessarily violating any established Laws of Physics.

But there is no logical problem with 'something' simply 'beginning to exist'. We ourselves have conceptual problems with that, but Quantum Mechanics demonstrates that our our ability to conceive of something is a poor guide as what actually is possible.

No, ontology is the study of categories of being and does make reference to the qualitative aspects of individual things.  "Ontologically incomplete" refers to the having of some potentiality which, in turn, refers to individual beings in their particular mode of actuality.  I am actually a conglomeration of elementary particles arranged in one way and not some other.  This is not relative to someone's conception, unless you want to endorse untenable worldviews such as solipsism or transcendental idealism.

Since this all trades on your misunderstanding of what it means to have an ontological plenitude, your premises can be disregarded.

No.  I've studied logic formally as an undergrad and implemented it in many other philosophy classes before I received my degree.  In the meantime, I study it on my own.

It is the study of being itself.  It is an elucidation of our understanding of being, which is not based on anything invented by us, but based upon an understanding of reality which is internal to the thought process.  In other words, these are a priori concepts which not only supersede experience, but also supersede our subjective imaginations.  Aristotle did not simply make up the idea that things have quantity, quality, relation, placement, temporality.  He formalized it on the basis of how being really is. 

Anything that exists has an ontological status, by definition. 

I'm assuming the validity of the definition of God, which, if properly understood, would necessitate a contradiction if you were to deny that such a being exists.  All you've done is declared it to be meaningless based on your own standards of what is meaningful and what is not.  You've decided arbitrarily that the only valid ontological descriptions are those which are not under the logic employed in Christian apologetics. 

Why is "ontologically complete" meaningless?  Can you please point out what law of logic is violated by this idea?

You did not demonstrate it.  Tangible descriptions are based on observation and come from the senses.  This is not relative to any conceptual framework.  It comes from outside of us.

I know what it is because I have studied it (along with the entire body of contemporary Thomistic metaphysics) for the past 6 years.  An ontological plenitude means that something exists with no imperfections.  All of its attributes are fully actualized and, as such, it needs nothing.  It does not need its existence sustained by air, food, water, blood, etc.  It simply exists with no preconditions.  This is also known as an "infinite being".  We do not need to even experience it in order to know that it is real.  We can simply look to the innate dynamism of the intellect and realize that everything which exists must be accounted for in some way and a reality which consists only of beings ontologically incomplete cannot be accounted for unless an infinite being exists.  Moreover, once we come to understand the nature of being itself, as well as the nature of an infinite being in theory, we realize that the existence of such a being cannot be denied without contradiction.

You can have at it if you want.  How can an infinite being possibly not exist?

It's disappointing, in light of that, you then have come to consider these ontological arguments worth repeating to atheists and agnostics, to whom they can never offer anything more than naked blanket assertions.

So now you're advancing Solipsism, are you? What's internal to our thought processes dictates what is and can be-- "how being really is"?

As I originally said, the most logical precise interpretation of this definition of ontology is that what is internal and essential to our thought processes dictates the level of our psychological interaction with it.  Do you see now why I said that?

Not relevant, until you establish a convincing ontological necessity for this being you're granting status to. You can assume its status all you like based on your fictions of what might be ontologically valid in the universe, but you cannot convince someone else of it until you demonstrate those things have validity beyond mere proposition.

No, Christian apologetics employs the same logic that any logician uses, but as is to be expected from diehard religiosity, it has not stopped at employment of logic but gone on to worship and idolise it. In your ontological argument Ontology is just another golden statue we are asked to bow before as almighty dictatorial perfection; excuse the non-religious if they ask for just a little more reason than that, in fields employing logic that are not christian apologetics (like science for instance) it's accepted and even encouraged for the sake of enlightenment.

Case in point. ^

Godchild, it lacks meaning not because of some internal logical issue, but because it stretches the authority of logic to idol status to umbrella numerous confusing and uncertain terms like infinite and absolute all at once. Until we have a better handle on the empirical reality of those terms no self respecting non-believer is going to agree on the meaningfulness of them.

Your question is loaded with the implication that any arbitrarily designated "Ontology" (as in the abstract study of categories of being) is sufficient to grant an ontological status. It's not.

Your ascribing the "innate dynamism of the intellect" the authority of what is and can be is solipsism.

Your whole argument is circular whilesoever it lacks actual descriptive ontology of this "infinite being" a lack which will persist as long as infinity is in any sense beyond the scope of our psychological interaction with the universe.

And? that in turn makes being possible? What's a priori to our senses is a priori to existence, right? isn't that what you're getting at here:

OOps, yep that's my bad that one, the right antecendent was there in my head when I read it back but I ust have been projecting. "it" refers to the thing having ontological status, which you will see is true in my original post:

I'm not sure how that sentence ended up looking like that, I even looked back to see if you have fucked with it because I was sure it read right when I posted.

For clarity what is internal and essential to our thought processes [regarding any x extant thing] dictates the level of our psychological interaction with it.

1. No you've overextended the reach of processes of logical proving to arbitrarily cover all extraordinary and inconceivable extremities, this is not proof it's parochial sophistry.

and 2. I do not know how I can make this more clear to your idolising nature which persistently wants only to curl back into it's little sophist nook and pretend nothing exists beyond it's golden statue of Ontological "truth" but I will try again -- I did not say your argument lacks logical proof, I said it lacks reasonableness and tangibility. Move beyond the internal logics of your assumptions and look at the ludicrous leaps you're asking people of reason to take into your temple of Ontology long before, said, logic comes into play.

It does not have clear meaning and moreover it does not have clear existence. As a mathematician it is my business to know the nature of what might be infinity by how numbers behave in that order, and they do not behave in that order like any category of being we have been privy to studying.

When an order of magnitude goes infinite forget logic because it is brazenly defied. Categories of being are untenable where one can add a valid entity and return the same value as though nothing was added, infinity +1 = infinity, heck, infinity + infinity = infinity so how does this preserve any such ideas as relation, placement, quantity..... ? well it just doesn't end of story.

Aristotle be damned (well not really, but the poor guy has been run over by reality here) his principles are powerless to describe what you're trying to prove with them, k?

That is a strawman for the majority of rational non-believers who would tell you empirical reality does not dictate what is meaningful in any absolute sense, it is just the domain of what can be considered meaningful by them.

And while we're on the subject, all these declarations of absolute dictation by logic are not rational, dude, lighten up, move outside the church-think for a second.

LMAO, typical defense of someone who knows that their argument can't work until someone falls for their handwavy bullshit first.

Get it straight, I'm not pleading ignorance, I'm calling you out on your bluff that you know what your argument requires me to believe you know. Unload the question and see if you still have a leg to stand on in proving anything to me or anyone here.