It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Therefore your premise one is incorrect your existence is contingent.
So you have arbitrarily chosen a definition that you have a strong emotional attatchment too. But why have you decided that it should be defined as that? This is where your (and every) argument for the existance of any deity falls apart. Bring in a thing that we can see and test before you start defining it's properties. Or else you are just picking properties that you FEEL should represent your opinion of what god is.
I already told you the solution.
I also told you the problem.
But if you say it is Ontological, that would not be my understanding.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword
Your existence is in empirical in the actual world, I would agree. That does not make your existence necessary as defined within the argument. Your empirical existence in the actual world is contingent upon certain factor. For instance if your parents had never met, then your empirical existence wouldn't have occurred and as such is contingent upon a possible world in which your parents had sexual intercourse. As such you cannot possibly exist in all possible worlds and as such you are not the greatest possible being because you lack necessary existence.