delete eeeeeeeeeee

I thought that the modal proof was, the Ontological Argument. But I dimly recall that Godel was supposed to have offered one too. Leibniz argued that it was "the privilege of the Deity, alone" that He needs only to be possible to be actual. But that is clearly a mistake.

I thought that the modal proof was, the Ontological Argument. But I dimly recall that Godel was supposed to have offered one too. Leibniz argued that it was "the privilege of the Deity, alone" that He needs only to be possible to be actual. But that is clearly a mistake.

I don't agree. If [](p -> []p) then (<>p -> p), is true.

I think it was Leibniz who included 'that whose possibility ensures its necessity' in a definition/description of god.

"God, the creator of the physical universe, exists" is analytic not contingent. It is either tautologous or contradictory.
That is; It is true that God exists, is equivalent to, It is necessary that God exists, is equivalent to, It is possible that God exists.

Oh, I agree that if God is a necessary being then, if He is a possible being, then He he exists. What I meant is just that it is a mistake to think that God is a necessary being.

I find it amazing how people can know so much about a mysterious being, when they know almost next to nothing abou themselfs, and their next door neighbour.

We are not claiming to know anything much about God. Only about modal logic. Did you notice the word "if" all around? All we were saying was that if God had these and these properties, then he would have to have, these and those properties. Of course, whether he has the first set of properties is unknowable. When I say that if some animal it a dog, then that animal is a mammal, I am not asserting that the animal is a dog. I am just asserting that if the animal is a dog, the animal is a mammal.

Why don't I think see any "if's" on making a simple accurate weather forecast? ..because it's next to impossible?

A weather forecaster is supposed to not only know what will happen if a cold front is coming, but also know whether the cold front is, in fact, coming. There is a big difference between saying, "If a cold front passes, there will be rain", on the one hand, and saying, "Since a cold front will pass, it will rain". The first is hypothetical. The second is not. Logicians say what is hypothetical.

You haven't stopped me in my tracks at all.

I see that as a poor interpetation of weather forecasts. They can only resort to such rough forecasts since doing anything else would have flawed results.

I said nothing about the roughness of the forecasts. Only that the forecasters were not saying anything hypothetical. Whether or not they felt certain about their forecasts is not the issue (as you seem to think it is).