Hi Eric,

Would these two versions be clearer?

Any concept of entity that does not intrinsically involve being A and not A at the same time in the same sense is not an intrinsic contradiction. That would mean such a concept is not a logical impossibility. Anything that is not a logical impossibility is a logical possibility, regardless of whether it actually exists or failed to exist in our actual world. An unicorn would thus be such an example.

See below:

•••••••
My version 1

Let E be an unconditionally/necessarily existing non-abstract entity.

P0: The concept of E contains no intrinsic self-contradiction and hence E is not a logical impossibility but a logically possibility that may or may not be exemplified in our actual world.

P1: It may or may not be possible that E is NOT actually existing non-abstractly now in our actual world.
(hence P1 is agnostic on whether or not E actually exists)

P2: Conceptually, any entity that is not actually existing non-abstractly now is not an unconditionally/necessarily existing non-abstract entity.

P3: If E is not actually existing non-abstractly now, then E, which by definition is conceptually an unconditionally/necessarily existing non-abstract entity, is also conceptually not an unconditionally/necessarily existing non-abstract entity by virtue of E’s actual non-existence.

P4: Hence the idea “E is not actually existing non-abstractly now” entails the logical contradiction that E is being and not being an unconditionally/necessarily existing entity at the same time.

P5: Hence it is logically impossible that E is not actually existing non-abstractly now in our actual world.

Conclusion:
Therefore E is actually existing non-abstractly now in our actual world.

•••••••

My version 2

Let E be an unconditionally/necessarily existing non-abstract entity.

P0: The concept of E contains no intrinsic self-contradiction and hence E is not a logical impossibility but a logically possibility that may or may not be exemplified in our actual world.

P1. It is logically possible that E necessarily exists now.

(Since “logically possible” = “not that it is logically impossible”, P1 entails P2)

P2. It is not that it is logically impossible that E necesarily exists now.

(Since “logically impossible that...” = “logically necessarily not that...”, P2 entails P3)

P3. It is not that it is logically necessarily not that E necessarily exists now.

(Since “it is logically necessarily not” entails “it is not”, P3 entails P4)

P4. It is not that it is not that E necesarily exists now.

(Since “It is not that it is not” = “It is” due to double negation, P4 entails P5)

P5. It is the case that E necessarily exists now.

Conclusion:
Therefore E necessarily exists now.

.
Cheers!

johannes y k hui

The Christian conceives Possible Worlds in which the Necessary Being is the God of Christianity.
The Muslim conceives Possible Worlds in which the Necessary Being is the God of Islam.
The indigenous person conceives Possible Worlds in which the Necessary Being is a Spirit Creator.
The Modal Logic practitioner conceives Possible Worlds in which the Necessary Being is the Maximally Great Being.

So in each case, the "observer" conceives a different sub-set of all Possible Worlds, but to the observer the sub-set appears to be all Possible Worlds. So what the proponent of the Modal Logic Ontological Argument asserts is all Possible Worlds, is in reality (in imagination, actually) a sub-set of all Possible Worlds, permitted by the blinkers.

Hey,

My apologies for the late response. I did at some point see your comment, but I was not in a position to answer at the time. When I went back to respond, the comment had disappeared, and I had turned off email notifications for comments (turned them back on now), so it didn't end up in my inbox. (I believe that in some cases, comments marked as spam/removed by a moderator can be seen by yourself in your Disqus comment history. If you do look for it, and find it, I'd be grateful if you'd copy in the answer to the first question.)

Let me just express my appreciation for your very thorough response. While I don't recall all the details, I found it very enlightening. Particularly your answer to the first question.

I don't think a repeated response to my questions is necessary, but I will definitely leave a comment on YouTube if I have any follow-up questions. (Though I won't assume that you'll always be following up on the comments for your videos.)

Grim

Hi VT, Yes I know about S5 and am prepared to allow it for the sake of argument. P3. is well-known as contentious. I am not sure how AP justifies it, but I am well aware that WLC sometimes justifies some of his premises as "metaphysical intuition", as if that somehow makes it right. I think that metaphysics has a lot to answer for, or maybe the way it is employed by some of its enthusiasts.

The Truth of something is not determined by your willingness to receive it, so therefore your premise is worthless because reality does not rely on your consent.

As for your writing and thinking. Woof. Reminds of Venerable Fulton Sheen when he said fools use big words to hide small ideas.

I find it ironic that you rebuked a guy for telling him to read his entire site before, when you do the same on the regular. Even tried it on me once on my old account I deleted to make this one.

Also, what are these "possible worlds" that you go on about? Is this some gnostic trap you set for your own pride where you claim there is some "multiverse" where you have usurped God in one of them?

As Tolkien said, the mark of Good fiction is that you understand that God could have created the universe to be anything. What cannot change is God.

By denying God, your fictions are therefore unfounded and terrible.

Now, if you are confused about Good. Goodness is just anything as God created it to be.

Even you were Good when created, but you became evil through misuse of free will. evil merely being an absence of Good caused by sin.

Hi Igor,

Thanks for sharpening the argument. Re your new version: I would question premise 3. (I might mention, in passing, that there are some logicians who question S5 - but I guess you know that already.)