Ontological arguments - where's the beef?

Your above comment seems contradictory even on the surface, does it not? Howeverif we are only speaking of possibilites, then the thing that would rule it in as a possibility would be the nature of things, change, disorder and chaos and eventually deathif we compare the universe to the deck of cards, then there is the very real consideration that those things mentioned are not consistent with anything eternal in characterSo it seems if we are speaking of possibilites, then there is a very good possibility that the MGB does existIf we are only considering base possibilitesDawn Bertot

Are you suggesting that anything that we can't provide proof for exists in the realm of not being possible until it has been done? That seems an odd position to take, but ok.I guess I can think of a whole heck of a lot of things that you can't prove are possible.

I should think then, by your terms, that things exist as either proven or not, and the whole use of the word "possible" is pointless. Its would become a meaningless idea. The word impossible could still be used, but there would be no need for the word possible at all.

Such as?

Stacking ten Mazda sedans on top of each other. Eating four bananas, three cherries and one small mango in exactly 4 minutes and 23 seconds. Singing three verses of Fiddler on the Roof while standing within four meters of the Grand Canyon....Do you need me to go on?

You are confusing an activity with an entity. There are things that cannot be done but we have evidence that they cannot be done. You start by saying not existing and then switch your meaning to cannot be done.There is no evidence for or against Mod's Maximal being, only philosophical arguments.So you point about Mazdas is about doing something (a verb), rather about an entity's (a noun) existence.Two very different things. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

I was standing next to the Grand Canyon the other day, wondering how I could prove it was possible to sing three verses of "Fiddler on the Roof" while standing within four meters of the Grand Canyon.
(Firstly, I realised that Fiddler On The Roof is not a song, but in fact a musical title, so I changed the task to singing "If I Were a Rich Man".)As I settled into deep thought, I started idly singing (which is my normal behaviour while thinking).
Three verses of "If I Were a Rich Man" later, I realised how I could prove if it was possible to sing three verses of "If I Were a Rich Man" while standing within four meters of the Grand Canyon.After which I settled down to eating my lunch: four bananas, three cherries and one small mango.
I was in a hurry so I finished my lunch in exactly 4 minutes and 23 seconds. It's probably best if you don't.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Hold on a second, not only are you confusing the argument by throwing in unnecessary qualifiers, but if you were more careful about the reading of Modulous statement that I was replying to, he mentioned specifically an ACTIVITY! The concept of "things" being impossible but "activities" being possible is YOUR dichotomy, not his, and I frankly don't know why you are attempting to make some distinction. If Mod wanted to say that there can be the possibility of something occurring without evidence, but there can't be the possibility of something existing without evidence, than this is an entirely different argument for him to make. But disregarding that, you are still all over the place with this reply.There is no evidence (according to Mod's point) that one can or can not stack 10 Mazadas on top of each other. Therefore it can not be assumed to be possible.

Oh Panda, I am so sorry for you that you are unable to see a philosophical point. there is little that can be done for you in that case I am afraid.I will give Modulous credit for being smart enough able to see the mental conundrum of not being able to say anything is possible until it is proven to be so-in his reasoning.Your reply has no meaning however.

Here Mod draws the distinction between doing and being. As far as I can see from this post Mod is clarifying he is describing an entity, not an activity. My understanding is that you were follwing Mod's point of an entity, here. Here I ask for an example of an entity (following on from my understanding of Mod's point and your reply). These are activities, rather than entities.Frankly the OP talks about an entity from the outset. It is not until you post about Mazdas that there was a change from a maximal great being to someone doing something.So again I ask the question: such as?

Rather than assume it is not possible one should say we do not know at this point in time if it is possible.

Larni has done a more than adequate explanation of why you are wrong.TBH: I could write the list of things that you are correct about on the back of a postage stamp using a crayon.

No. I'm suggesting that if one asserts something is possible, one needs to support that it is in fact possible with evidence. And so it would be right to challenge anybody that claims they are possible.

No. It is neither ruled out nor ruled in. Nothing we know says that it is impossible and nothing we know says it is possible. That doesn't imply God is possible. Because there are things that exist that are not consistent with an eternal character? I'm sorry that is a non-sequitur. What is a base possibility?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

What evidence could one give of something being possible, without actually demonstrating something to be? If you have already shown something to "be" why would one need the redundant concept of "being possible" when the definition you are presenting for being possible is showing that it IS?"Possible" becomes a moot point.