Hi Vincent, I'm studying the ontological argument for god's existence and I wanted to know what you think about the modal ontological argument and whether it is convincing or not? Thank you so much
Nope. In fact, I find it to be laughably unconvincing. The minute you state that the existence of God is "necessary," you enter the realm of the absurd.
Why? Because you can substitute anything for "God" in this argument. So, using this logical progression, we can "prove" the existence of dragons, fairies, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Superman, or frankly, ANYTHING YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE.
It doesn't matter that the argument itself is logically valid, because having a sound logical argument is not the same as having a TRUE logical argument.
It all goes back to my initial statement. By claiming that the existence of ANYTHING is "necessary," you shoot yourself in the foot. No argument for this is rational.