Either you do not understand the argument at all, or else you are resorting to a thoroughly dishonest straw man because you know you can’t refute it. It is not the only difference, and in fact not even a relevant difference, between water and God that water is tangible. The important difference is that it is not the definition of water, or of the essence of water, to exist necessarily. If it were, and it were possible for water not to exist, then water would, indeed, not exist. It is absolutely true that if it is possible for a necessary being not to exist, then it does not exist. This is an absolutely valid deduction, and it does not matter one iota whether you “find” it to be so or not.
The possibility of another 'world' does not of neccessity change the nature of the one who creates.
Well, yes it does, according to classical theism, if the nature of the one who creates is that of an absolutely simple necessary being.
If another world were actual, the nature of the creator would of necessity be different than it is in ours, for His will would need to be different, which is the same thing as saying He would be a different being (His essence would be different). This premise is ironclad in classical theism, which says God’s will and His essence are identical.
Then, classical theism also demands that this world is not the only possible world; that this world contains contingent beings, which might not exist in another possible world. Classical theism posits God did not create this world out of necessity. (If He did, then all creatures in this world would be necessary beings).
Therefore, the God who exists in this world is not the same God who exists in another possible world. Which to say, His existence is not necessary but contingent.
How can having al possiblilities concievable limit the ability to create, or change the nature of the creator? Your merely throughing out a circular argument.
You have not demonstrated my argument to be circular at all. The conclusion is nowhere implied in the premises, and you haven’t shown that it is.
If you conceive of the creator somehow existing metaphysically prior to his decision to create, then you have a changed creator. You have his will changing from the decision not to create to the decision to create, which, again, means His essence has changed; but classical theism demands God’s nature be immutable. Thus, to say that God has “all possibilities” means that there is an infinite multitude of possible Gods. But each God only has one possibility. It is a different God who decides to create me vs. one who does not.
And your reasoning does not factor in that their may be many other ‘worlds’ so far as we know, and yes you may not be part of any of them. The possibility of other existences does not demonstrably alter our own
The definition of ‘world’ here is ‘all that exists’ so yes, I am part of that ‘world’ by definition.
I think you've started off on the wrong foot. You're attempting to disprove traditional concepts of God, but by slightly altering the traditional understanding.
No, I have disproved the traditional concept of God by **using **the traditional understanding and highlighting an inherent contradiction. You have to show precisely where I have “altered” the traditional understanding.
Placing God ‘in’ this world and not also beyond it is not traditional Catholicism in any way. The very train of logic you’ve used suggest that He is not ‘part’ of the world, yet in your reasoning god becomes restricted by his creative action.
In the first place, you’re either dishonestly equivocating on the use of ‘world’, or you don’t have a basic understanding of modal logic, where ‘world’ means ‘all that exists’, which includes God by definition, if He exists. ‘World’ does not here mean ‘the physical universe’.
And it’s not “my” reasoning that God “becomes” (we should say “is”, God cannot “become”) restricted by creative action. God cannot change His will. That is an essential premise of classical theism; the immutability of God.
If I think of an idea, but could have thought an entirely different idea, does this change the nature of my mind, what could have been thought?
Not for you. But it does for God, if He actually thought different than He does, He would be a different God. He wouldn’t be the same God Who thinks differently. That is impossible according to classical theism.