You´d have to not be able to read correctly to think that the MOA starts with "god exists" (the main premise can be Maximal greatness is exemplified) and if the argument finishes on "therefore god exists" , it´s because the premises entail that conclusion, that´s what a valid argument is suppose to do.
To know that the argument does not start with "God exists" one just needs to read the premises
1. Possibly, maximal greatness is exemplified
2. Necessarily, if maximal greatness is exemplified then maximal excellence is exemplified in all worlds.
3 if (Possibly, maximal greatness is exemplified , and, Necessarily, if maximal greatness is exemplified, then, maximal excellence is exemplified in all worlds), then, actually, maximal excellence is s exemplified in all worlds.
If you want to say that 1 means God exists, you are just mistaken, for that to follow 2 and 3 are needed.
So, I won´t be answering to your assertions that the argument starts with God exists, anymore, it just does not deserve attention.
Oh, no one is saing that god exists because god exists. They're just saying that god, which exists in all possible worlds including ours, exists in some possible world. So to be more precise first premise is more like an indefinite list of premises, namely:
P0. God exists in our world
P1. God exists in world 1
P2. God exists in world 2
.
.
.
Pi. God exists in world i
.
.
.
Pn. God exists in world n
But to be honest it doesn't make much difference to me, whether it's one premise or 20, the point is none of them is evidence based, it's easy to make a logical chain which will lead to a certain conclusion, I already gave you one simple example. I continue comment on this later.
The MOA possibility premise is based on the evidence from intuition, other arguments conclusions and the evidence from the naturalness and common use , which are based on inductive reasoning and observation.
Evidence from intution - my intuition tells me there isn't god, are you sure about this part? But I wouldn't be surprised if intuition meant something completely different here.
Other arguments conclusions - you admit my point once again, MOA itself adds nothing to the case it's just a complex way of saying that if there are sufficient reasons to believe in god, then it's reasonable to believe in god. First premise already tells us whether god exists or not, so to establish it we need some evidence for the existence of god. I can only wonder why would anyone call it modal ontological argument and present it as independent argument for anything.
naturalness - I wasn't able to find any informations on what being properly projectable means in this context, but again, you refer to philosophy, instead of science so it's extremaly unlikely to add any substance to your premise.
common use- ad populum, why you keep using it as a justification of any sort?
It´s confused to think that statements that are not based on any evidential or inductive reasoning (read Bealer, Chalmers), cannot lead to meaningful conclusions? Many mathematical proofs are not based on evidential nor inductive reasoning, and yet lead to meaninful conclusions.
Math is made up. Axioms can be intuitive and make sense to us, or we can make them super exotic and create our own universe when nothing is intuitive. We can choose our axioms quite freely, the point is whether we make them somewhat connected to what we observe in real world has influence on whether our conclusions are going to make sense.
But, this is irrelevant, since, as I explained the MOA has an evidential base, that I have provided.
No, you didn't? That's the point. Why should I accept pure reasoning as evidence if I know it never led us to any actual discovery? Or let's say it did once or twice, who knows, it still doesn't change the fact this standard of evidence simply doesn't work.
You have to prove that god exists in some posible world. By "prove" I don't mean 100% certainty, just beyond any reasonable doubt. Given that we have only access to our world you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that god exists in our world. I think it shows quite decisively why MOA fails.
And your following example, makes me doubt I should spend any more time in this exchange, it is just irrelevant and not a serious attempt to understand the argument:
Earth is spherical <=> god exists ...
This is not a definition it´s a bi-conditional truth claim, and, under common understanding of what the terms mean there is no reason to think it is true.
If you define earth is spherical =(def) God exists, then, it is true, but, then what is the support for the 1st premise? not what you stated, on the support for P1.
I still ask why I should accept that god is possible. If I accept that god is possible than it logically follows he exists. So for all purposes when you ask me to accept the possibility of god you ask me to accept the existence of god.
If say we were arguing whether earth is spherical then you could make a following argument:
1. Sphere is the only shape which always casts a round shade
2. Earth always casts a round shade on the moon
3. Earth is spherical
Here both our premises are grounded in observations. So I wouldn't ask why should I accept them knowing where they lead. However in case of MOA nothing is based on any kind of evidence, instead we have definitions, axioms and wordplays. The same is true for my example. I don't provide any justification for my premise, all I do is I manipulatre words in such a way that it seems reasonable to accept my premise. You claim you have justification for your premise, just disagree, to establish your first premise that god exists in some possible world you have to prove his existence in this world. Given that we have access only to our world you have to prove that god actually exists in our world or at least that it's very likely. But it's another way of showing that MOA itself is just complicated wordplay.
That's the difference between evidence based argument and MOA. It doesn't matter how many excellent axioms you use, or how brilliant your definitions are, there is no evidence whatsoever anywhere in your argument, so since it's all made up you could just very well reduce it to "if god exists, then god exists".
When you say that there are other arguments whose conclusions help MOA, you're basically saying, that "if there are good arguments for the existence of god, than it's reasonable to accept that god exists"
These are a very poor arguments, and it just shows we are nowhere near the level needed to understand much less criticize the argument.
Well from my point of view our discussion may be compared to the following one:
1. You have a very complex equation and you somehow managed to get the answer - god
2. I point out that you made a very simple error, you put 2 and 2 together, and your result is 5.
3. I try to convince you that if you mend your mistake the answer is actually zero.
4. You argue that I don't know calculus, topology, modal logic, etc. And you give me a lot of books.
That's basically how our discussion looks like.
And speaking of books, I'd highly suggests you to read more of scientific ones. Maybe it would change your way of thinking a bit. I'm sorry to break it to you, but all these illustriuous philosophers, work of which you want me to study, know nothing more of god, than you or me. They didn't see him, they didn't make observations, they didn't carry any experiments. Philosophers are like supercomputers which lack any data to process. I think it's quite obvious, otherwise they'd be scientists.
Furthermore, I´m no expert, I can certainly be wrong, but, the way you address me as if I am trying to trick you or deceive you, and I´m just deluded or something: I´m just sick of it. I don´t know you and I don´t have to accept that kind of treatment.
It´s all the same to me, you think I´m a liar, and, full of myself, with no connection to reality, and, I think you are just an ignorant cretin, let´s not waste our time, further.
Well, you know, before you say that someone insults you and before you call this person a cretin make sure you are indeed the first one who is actually being offended. I think it doesn't require any further comment. Anyway, "I'm insulted" is not a winning argument.
You are ignorant of the literature, have no epistemic humility, and, you are not here to learn anything but tell us how it is. Have a good life.
I can only wonder what do you mean by epistemic humility, I'm not humble because I point out no one ever make any significatn breakthrough just by sitting and thinking very hard, without basing their process of thought on evidence and observation?
And you didn't address any of my counterexamples. I can still only guess why my evil being can't exist, the last rebuttal to it you gave was that we surely don't observe maximal level of evil in our world. I responded that we also don't observe maximal good too...
And let me stress this again, because given how long this topic is, it probably wasn't highlighted enough:1. To support your first premise you need to prove god exists in at least one possible world
2. The only world we can work with is our own
3. Therefore to support first premise of MOA you have to prove that god exists in our world.
4. Therefore if you prove that god exists in our world, then you can use MOA to argue that god exists in our world.
Good luck.