Is it possible for unicorns to exist? Sure.
I don't see why you are sure about this. Why are you sure it is possible for unicorns to exist in a possible world? Is there no chance that the existence of unicorns is simply impossible regardless of your ability to conceive of one.
By definition. If something is logically possible, then it is actually possible. That is what we mean
when we talk about a possible world. There is no possible world in which two and two equal five. There is a possible world in which I don't exist. That doesn't mean that any other world's actually exist or that other worlds in which I don't exist actually exist. Possible worlds themselves are subject to the same language; are other worlds possible? Unless there is something self-contradictory in the notion of "possible world," the answer is yes. Do possible worlds exist? That's another question entirely.
Is there anything inherently self-contradictory in the notion of a unicorn? No. Therefore, there are possible worlds in which unicorns exist. That does NOT mean that there are worlds in which unicorns exist. To make mistake in reading it that way is to fundamentally misunderstand the argument.
On the other hand, it is possible for married bachelors to exist? No
3 or 4 years at university and a wife makes one a walking logical impossibility then. A bachelor of science who is married is not unheard of.
I realise it is stretching the definitions a little but one who does not recognise gay marriage may view two married gay men as simply two batchelors. Or my friend who was married at the age of fourteen in a pagan ceremony I would consider a batchelor as he has been single for a long time now, but in some sense he is also married.
Yes, that is stretching the definition a bit. Would you prefer me to speak of four sided trianges? You are just arguing with the example. The point remains the same.
Is it possible for an illogical world to exist?
No. Now, if you believe four sided triangles, married unmarried people, virgins who have sex [actual--don't make me get too graphic in description] every weekend, bright darkness, and experienced neophytes to exist--or any other such silly notion; like the idea that A can not be A in the same time, place, and way--then you are denying the law of non-contradiction, and no proof of any kind on any subject will have any value to you whatsoever. If, though, you want to stick with the rational world, then no, illogical worlds are not possible.
Gasking's proof also touches on some of the ideas about existence you alluded to in your first post:
1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore God does not exist.
Lots of things wrong with this "proof"
(1) is unsound in that it is simply false. There is no reason to believe it is true. Further, it introduces unnecessary catagories that it ends up confusing later with the word "imaginable," since this speaks of knowledge, whereas a proper ontological speaks nothing of knowledge. We are talking about an ontological
, not epistemological, argument.
(2) is also unsound. It is questionable whether or not anything has intrinsic quality, and it is very questionable whether or not merit has any basis on the ability of the person doing the action.
(3) introduces a relative term in "impressive." To whom? By what standards? By whose standards? If we look at things relative only to themselves, then you have a huge
problem with the argument, because it can't apply to God at all . . . thus
(4) is false for multiple reasons. First, it is self-contradictory. Something that doesn't exist can't be said to do anything. Creators, by definition, create. Therefore, it is impossible to speak of a creator as non-existent. Second, it is impossible to attribute anything to a thing that doesn't exist, including handicaps.
(5) is also false for multiple reasons. In the first place, existence or non-existence doesn't change the greatness of a thing. This statement proves to much, for the moment you adopt it as true, you automatically concede the main argument of the ontological argument and are forced to admit God's existence. The reason is simple: if existence and non-existence add to a concept, making it more or less great, then the main premise of the ontological argument is true, and therefore, so is its conclusions. As it stands, my objection to the ontological argument is exactly this: that existence and nonexistence do not add to a concept. Thus, you "proof" for the non-existence of God falls in at least exactly the same way as the classical ontological argument does. Kant is somewhere smiling right now. He's thwarted yet another silly attempt at philosophy.
Anyway, in the second place, (5) is illogical for the same reason (4) is. Something that doesn't exist cannot do anything. Thus, it is logically absurd to speak of non-existing creators creating. You may as well be speaking of four sided triangles.
Therefore, (6) fails to follow from your first five statements. Beyond all that, it is terribly constructed . . . mixing in unnecessary terms and categories. The best part is, like the problem of evil, to argue it is to prove God exists, for just as atheists must recognize the existence of evil to use it to argue against God, but the existence of evil presupposes and logically requires His exists, in just the same way, your argument here assumes that existence adds to the greatness of a concept, and in so doing admits the ontological argument does, in fact, prove Him to exist. So, bravo! You've proven He does exist . . . at least, by your standards of argument. Not by mine, but I do consider myself a bit more logically rigorous . . .
By the way, you're moving the goal posts. First, you said you didn't like the argument because there was a leap between (1) and (2). I explained why you were mistaken there. Now you have moved off in other directions, some of them rather silly to boot (arguing against examples, stretching definitions, challenging the law of non-contradiction). Are your objections real ones that you would actually like to discuss, or are you merely throwing up smoke-screens, beacuse while the breeze that rids us of that annoying smoke is nice, that kind of discussion is rather boring, as I'm sure you'd agree.