Shadow thread for MOA H2H Debate

[rikuoamero]

As the title says, this is a shadow thread for the Head-to-Head debate currently in progress here
viewtopic.php?t=32046

Other than this post, I will NOT interact with this thread. I merely wanted to provide a set space for discussion on the debate for other users.

[Divine Insight]

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

His only option here is to argue that this premise is false; that is, that God’s existence is impossible. But on what logical grounds can he successfully argue this?

The logic itself, as presented in the argument, is impeccable.

May I have the next dance? I'd be pleased to go up against you after this debate is finished.

I too argue (or at least ask for clarification) on what is meant when it is claimed that the logic in this argument is "impeccable".

Impeccable in what sense?

In the sense of pure unrestricted philosophy? In that sense it would be difficult to argue that the argument is flawed. We could imagine a world that is indeed perfectly moral in every possible way. It would be extremely difficult to prove that such an imaginary world could not exist.

However, our world does not meet this qualification. Therefore it is very easy to show that this proposed MGB cannot be describing any God in our world. And so this argument cannot be used to support a God related to our world.

Whether this MOA argument could stand as some sort of philosophical perfectionism of some imagined perfectly moral world is an entirely different matter.

[Divine Insight]

I would like to ask for justification for getting from step 2 to step 3 in the MOA:

Here's the MOA:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (our world).

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Let's assume for argument's sake that I've accepted statements #1 and #2.

What then is the justification for statement #3?

Especially if the following is also held up to be true:

Omniscient: All knowing, knowing the truth value of all propositions.
Omnipotent: Can do anything that is logically possible.
Omnipresent: Presence is manifested, whether physically or spiritually, everywhere, at any given time
Omnibenevolent: The ultimate source of goodness, morally perfect.

The last two of these latter premises demand that the MGB is both omnipresent and omnibenevolent in the world in which it exists.

That's fine if we're talking about some imagined "possible" world that does indeed exhibit the property of being omnibenevolent.

But step #3 claims that if this MGB exists in "some possible world" then it must exist in every possible world?

Why should that be true?

If the MGB is both omnipresent and benevolent in the world in which it exists, then it could not be exist in a world where omnibenevolence does not exist.

Also doesn't the following statements verify that fallacy of the MOA argument.

Consider the following:

1. It is possible that a maximally evil being exists

2. If it is possible that a maximally evil being exists, then a maximally evil being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally evil being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

This would demand that Satan must then necessarily exist in the Christian God's heaven at all times. Otherwise there would exist some worlds where the MEB did not exist.

So it seems to me that this MOA argument is extremely flawed in many ways.

[Divine Insight]

Consider the following argument. What's wrong with it? Anything?

1. It is possible that I exist.

2. If it is possible that I exist, then I exist in some possible world.

3. If I exist in some possible world, then I exist every possible world.

4. If heaven is a possible world, then I necessarily must exist in heaven.

5. Therefore I exist in heaven.

Again, how do we justify moving from step 2 to step 3?

[Bust Nak]

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists... In other words, for all we know, a MGB could exist.

Is it? Prove it. That's all that need to be said to end the argument. There is nothing new in this latest iteration of the argument. It's just a repeat of this old thread.

how do we justify moving from step 2 to step 3?

For_The_Kingdom slipped in "a MGB would also have to exist necessarily" as part of the preamble when defining God.

[Demented_Literature]

3. If I exist in some possible world, then I exist every possible world.

Virtual reality disputes this claim.

I can both exist and not exist in a virtual world. It is a created entity with the properties I define; but it is not necessary for me to exist within that world. It can have intelligent beings that partake of the rules of the world and move through the world in the form of avatars and are governed by that worlds rules; but these beings are not at all relative to other 'servers' of the same exact world. I can also exist within the 'real' world and my 'virtual world' or any number of 'virtual worlds' simultaneously. There is no necessity here.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 15 by Demented_Literature]

A virtual reality would be meaningless in the context of the MOA argument. The MOA is claiming to make statements about real worlds, not virtual realities.

[Demented_Literature]

[quote="Divine Insight"]
[Replying to post 15 by Demented_Literature]

Edited -

I concede the point after some thought; it does not fit within the confines of the argument.

[WinePusher]

Consider the following argument. What's wrong with it? Anything?

1. It is possible that I exist.

2. If it is possible that I exist, then I exist in some possible world.

3. If I exist in some possible world, then I exist every possible world.

4. If heaven is a possible world, then I necessarily must exist in heaven.

5. Therefore I exist in heaven.

Again, how do we justify moving from step 2 to step 3?

A far better question to ask is, well, what isn't wrong with your argument? If you want to chime in so badly on the modal ontological argument shouldn't you at least try to understand it?

The difference between your little, inane argument and the actual MOA is that you are not a maximally great being. Sure, you may consider yourself to be one, but you're not. By definition, "God" is a maximally great being. Because "God" is maximally great, his existence is necessarily guaranteed because maximal greatness necessitates existence (omnipresence).

But hey, you claim to be good at math right? So if the philosophical conception of this argument is beyond comprehension let's try framing this from a mathematical analysis perspective. How do proofs in mathematics work DI? You start out with the definitions, so let's get those out of the way:

God: Maximally great being.
Maximally Great Being: All Powerful, All Knowing, All Good, Present Everywhere.

Now let's try a little proof by contradiction, ie: negate what you already know and logically follow all the implications to arrive at a contradiction. So let's assume that opposite, that God isn't a maximally great. If God is not maximally great then he is not present everywhere. If God is not present everywhere THEN there is NO REASON to think that if God's existence were possible in some possible world, then God must then necessarily exist in EVERY possible world. And then the MOA falls apart. But hey, guess what. That's a contradiction cause God is defined as a maximally great being. So the only way for you to even try to attack this argument is to deny what the dictionary says, and reject defining God as a maximally great being.

Tbh though, even as a devout Christian I don't find the MOA or even Anselm's original version to be convincing at all. Yes, it is sound and valid, and every single attempt by the internet atheists here to attack the soundness and validity of the argument seems to have miserably failed (including this current H2H), but the argument carries no force.

I used to be an atheist, and when I heard this argument thrown around by my religious peers I'd just sit back and think to myself, "Wow, really? You expect me to all of sudden believe this supreme being exists just because you were able to cleverly formulated a logically compact argument based on nothing more than semantics (the meaning of one particular word)? No thanks." I still think that.

[benchwarmer]

But hey, you claim to be good at math right? So if the philosophical conception of this argument is beyond comprehension let's try framing this from a mathematical analysis perspective. How do proofs in mathematics work DI? You start out with the definitions, so let's get those out of the way:

God: Maximally great being.
Maximally Great Being: All Powerful, All Knowing, All Good, Present Everywhere.

And thus you have shown the problem with this argument. Here, I'll show you why:

DI: Maximally great being.
Maximally Great Being: All Powerful, All Knowing, All Good, Present Everywhere.

Look at that, through pure definition I have transformed DI into a god. DI, oh holy great one, I humbly submit that a poem should be carved in stone to commemorate your rising to greatness.

Adherents to this 'logical argument' just don't get it. You can't simply define something to be true and then, POOF, it is true.

[Goose]

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

His only option here is to argue that this premise is false; that is, that God’s existence is impossible. But on what logical grounds can he successfully argue this?

The logic itself, as presented in the argument, is impeccable.

May I have the next dance? I'd be pleased to go up against you after this debate is finished.

Send me a PM letting me know what you have in mind.