Dear Liberal,
Apologies, I was letting my thoughts run away with me there; should have realized that I’d be the only one to understand them :). Here goes.
Modal Ontological Proof – I like that, by the way, has a nice ring to it.
I acknowledge that this proof refers to nothing other than the existence of the given being; it’s specific to the scope of modal status. However, the equivocation does not really come on my part, but there are leaps of logic in the proof at that link. I’ll try to explain what’s going on.
GPB – Greatest possible being.
OP – Being with ontological perfection
Tisthammer, at that link there, defines God as the greatest possible being. With regard to ontological status, it is pretty obvious that this would indicate, as you call it “ontological perfection” – necessary existence. There are also other attributes given to the being, such as omnipotence (powerful to the greatest possible extent), omniscience (knowing all that there is) etc… Now, from this argument, it indeed, follows that if such a being exists, then it would have to exist necessarily. If we attribute the status of necessary existence to anything, and then posit that it is possible, it exists both in all possible worlds and in actuality.
The leap of logic, however, comes when the attributes of “omnipotence” and “omniscience” are attributed to the being. Indeed, when any property is attributed to the being other than ontological perfection. What is there to say that this being has all the knowledge (temporarily assuming that it is at least logically possible – a problematic presupposition). All that we know of this being is that it has necessary existence - it will always be the case that it exists; perhaps also that it cannot be “destroyed”, but that neither implies omniscience or omnipotence.
It follows, therefore, that if GPB –> OP; however, affirming the consequent here would be fallacious. The argument, itself, only tells us that a being with ontological perfection exists; it does not follow (and no substantiation was provided at your link), and it does not follow that OP –> GPB.
OP is a pretty vacuous attribute, anyhow. All the axioms of logic have ontological perfection/necessary existence. (On another note, what do you mean by “being”? “Being” and “existence” are quite different from one another, but most people don’t know that so I treated them as synonymous here). For all it’s worth, the Modal Ontological Proof, only proves that there is a thing such that it has necessary existence (which is already proved at your first link).
On a final note, I would be interested in seeing the logics that do not recognize truth. Truth is something we simply cannot get away from (and per Russell, possibly provides a refutation of materialism ;)). Interesting point about the axioms of logic - I suppose you are correct for some of that part, the fundamentals are purely analytic.
of the thinking. He already presumes his existence; it’s the hidden premise and hence, the argument is pure circular reasoning. Knowing the short-extent of my eloquence, perhaps this extract will help; an extract from Russell’s The Problems of Philosophy: