The Modal Ontological Argument

[For_The_Kingdom]

Before I begin the actual argument, a few terms/concepts must be addressed. One of those concepts involves possible world semantics. What is a “possible world� (PW)?

A PW is a set of circumstances or any proposition that could be true, or could be false…or a set of circumstances or any proposition that could be necessarily true, or necessarily false.

Example: Barack Obama is the President of the United States.

If this statement is true, then there is a possible world at which Barack Obama is President of the United States. However, since Barack Obama could very well NOT be the President of the U.S., then it follows that there is a possible world at which Barack Obama isn’t President of the U.S.

So, in essence, there is a possible world (set of circumstances) at which Barack Obama is the President of the U.S. (and vice versa). In other words, it’s possible.

That being said; let’s turn our attention to the difference between contingent truths, and necessary truths. Contingent truths are circumstances or propositions that could be true, but could also be equally false (such as the example above).

Necessary truths are truths that are either true or false REGARDLESS of the circumstances. So in essence, necessary truths are true in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS. Good examples of necessary truths are mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4 <--- this is true in all possible circumstances and can never be false under any circumstance.

Next, I’d like to turn the attention to the definition of God. God, at least as defined by Christian theism, is a maximally great being (MGB). By maximally great, we mean that God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere at any given time), and omnibenevolent (the ultimate source of goodness)…an ultimately, such a being is necessary in its existence (such a being cannot fail/cease to exist).

The four "omni's"that you see above, those are what we'd called "great making properties." A person is considered "great" based on accomplishments, power, influence, character, etc.

Being a maximally great being, all of those great-making properties are maxed out to the degree at which there isn't anything left to add. It is virtually impossible to think of a "greater being" than one that is all-knowing, all powerful, present everywhere, and the ultimate source of goodness.

Now, the Modal Ontological Argument makes a case that it is possible for such a being to actually exist. In other words; there is a possible world at which a MGB exists.

On to the argument..

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.

Of course, most of you will agree that it is possible for a MGB to exist. The problem is, once you admit that it is possible for a MGB to exist, you are essentially saying “It is possible for a necessary being to exist�.

Well, if it is possible for a necessary being to exist, then it follows that such a being must ACTUALLY exist. Why? Because a proposition cannot be possibly necessarily true, but actually false (because if the proposition is actually false, then it was never possibly necessarily true).

Again, most of you admit that it is possible for God to exist. Well, if it is possible for God to exist, then God must actually exist, because God’s existence would be one of necessity, and no necessary truth can be possibly true, but actually false.

And under the same token, if it is possible for God to NOT exist, then it is impossible for God to exist. So, God’s existence is either necessarily true, or necessarily false. And again for the third time, at some point in each and every one of your lives, you’ve admitted that it is possible for God to exist.

Therefore, God must exist. And as I close this argument, just for the record, it will take more than you people putting your hand over your ears and shouting “The argument is not valid� or whatever you like to say when a theist bring forth an argument.

You actually have to address the argument (1-5), and explain why any of the premises are false. But I don’t think that you can, can you?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 149 by For_The_Kingdom]

But it would not be possible for time travel to NOT be possible in all worlds, should there exist a necessary being at which time travel is possible.

Hmm...
question for you Kingdom.
Is it possible for a MGB to grant I, the person behind the handle of rikuoamero, the ability to heal others from illness by touching them, without me having to believe it exists first?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Which is why those two sentences of mine you quote separately were written together. Just because it can be imagined does not mean it is possible. Just because you can imagine a MGB does not make it possible. You just agreed with me.

When it comes to necessary propositions, if we can imagine it, it is possible.

Why is it absurd? How is the premise faulty? Details my boy, details...

I forgot what I was responding to, nor did you provide the full context in your quote...and I am too lazy to go back and fetch it.

That is all an ugly 3-headed monster, isn't it.

Actually the question of why is relevant, since philosophy is all about asking "why". But that wasn't even the point.

My point was, even if I am unable to tell you "why" a MGB needs to exist, that still doesn't invalidate the argument in any way, shape, or form...making it irrelevant.

But even with that being said, answer that question, just not regarding this argument.

The point was that "necessary" isn't part of your premise. You've changed the premise in the middle of the argument. And you got caught doing it too.

Um, I gave the definition of the MGB in this context...that was in the preface, before the actual argument was laid out.

You haven't addressed any of my points yet. One of them you didn't even understand the point made. I'd say it is false logic to claim the argument remains unrefuted. (To continue that using your methodology, we can now say that your claim is necessarily refuted)...

I did.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 151 by For_The_Kingdom]

My point was, even if I am unable to tell you "why" a MGB needs to exist, that still doesn't invalidate the argument in any way, shape, or form...making it irrelevant.

Woah woah woah...woah. Hold on there a second. You're in a philosophical argument with someone...and you think that when you are UNABLE to answer a WHY question, that somehow DOESN'T invalidate your argument?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Ironically, that's exactly the problem in your argument that I am highlighting. It DOES take more than just merely stating the premises...you DO actually have to give evidence that support the premises. The premises DO have to be supported. That exactly what you've failed to do. You've mere stated the premise that God is a necessity being, you haven't gave any evidence that support that premise, other than to say that's what Christians believe. Which is why I accused you of trying to define God into existence. The problem you've identified in my simplistic 'proof' is the very same problem in the modal ontological argument, which of course is the reason why I made that simplistic 'proof' in the first place, you haven't addressed a word of my counter argument. Don't you see my 'proof' is analogious to yours?

You are correct, I didn't give any support to any of the premises. Why? Because I thought that most of you would agree with P1, so I felt that there was no need to support it.

And I was correct, most of you do agree with P1 and after P1 is established, then the rest of the argument flows just as naturally/logically as one would expect a logically valid and sound argument to flow.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Let's imagine a gumdrop named Jake. If I ask you whether Jake may exist, you'll likely say yes. Because Jake may exist and may not. So you concede that Jake may exist.

Which means that Jake does exist in some possible world.

And suppose I now say that Jake has some characteristics I didn't mention before. One is that Jake is necessary: If Jake exists in any possible world, he exists in all possible worlds.

Another characteristic is that Jake takes up the entire universe: In any possible world in which Jake exists, there is no room for anything else. Jake is always the only thing in his universe.

And, note, you have already conceded that Jake exists in some possible world! Therefore, he exists in all possible worlds. Therefore nothing exists in the actual world except for a single gumdrop!

See, you've just screwed yourself in your own silly, nonsensical counter-argument. How so? Because you just defined Jake as "a necessary being which exists in every possible world, worlds at which there is no room for anything else".

That is YOUR definition of this Jake being. Now, if there is NO ROOM FOR ANYTHING ELSE TO EXIST (within these worlds)...then how in the HELL do we exist in the actual world. Obviously, there is room in the actual world (which is included in the "possible worlds"), otherwise, we wouldn't be here!!!

The fact that we are here, in the actual world, with all of this space to occupy, defeats your entire argument!!!

SMH. And you have the nerve to call the MOA more stupider than the one you proposed, yet you are not able to easily defeat the MOA as I just did yours.

LOL.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 149 by For_The_Kingdom]

Never have I seen such a long thread over what the word 'possible' means.

Some of us, including myself, originally granted that anything is possible using the colloquial meaning of 'possible'. i.e. there is a chance where the chance is 0 to 100 percent.

Now that most everyone realizes that this argument hinges on a more formal meaning of possible i.e. >0 % chance, many have since rejected the whole thing at premise 1, myself included.

Long story short, nobody has been convinced and most are now busy eating popcorn watching For_The_Kingdom trying to convince those who are still participating that God is real because of fancy word play.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 155 by benchwarmer]

You lie. You are a liar good sir. Consider this me slapping you in the face with a glove and a challenge to a duel. With pistols at dawn.

I'm eating pizza. I hate popcorn.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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).

It should also pointed out - if someone has not done already - that the modal ontological argument is only valid in modal system S5 and similar systems with the Euclidean condition on frames in what is called Kripke semantics. The Euclidean condition on frames admits that if world w can access some world v, then any other world accessible from w is also accessible from v. In other words every accessible world is able to access every other world. This is essentially what point 3 relies on to be valid.

A theorem of S5 is an argument in the form <>[]p ->p. In words: a possibly necessity implies actuality. This seems to be at the heart of For_The_Kingdom's defence of MOA. But <>[]p -> p is not a theorem of other competing modal systems like S4 or K.

So what the MOA is seeking is only true of a limited number of modal systems and not a general truth of all modal logics.

System S4 and S5 are both classed as standard modal logics and both are are regarded as plausible.

Man, you guys are doing everything in your POWER to negate this argument, and some of it is down right desperation.

As I asked before, please tell me a truth that is necessarily true on Earth, but untrue in any other planet, world, or universe. That would be like saying 2+2=4 on earth, but on Mars, 2+2 =17....or it would be like saying a squared circle can't exist on earth, but on Jupiter, the place is crawling with them.

It can't happen. The implications are inescapable, guys. There is no amount of Google searches you can conduct or videos that you can watch that will allow you to overcome the soundness and validity of the argument.

You can rebuttal a lie, but you can't rebuttal the truth. There is something about the truth that allows it to stand alone, regardless of any external considerations.

[For_The_Kingdom]

So we see that in your world, God is a "necessary truth", such that all you can do is dream him into existence with nothing more than possibility. You can't fathom a world without god, so you employ this argument as a cudgel against what is real in this world. And what's real in this world, what is a "necessary truth" in this world, is that the mere possibility of something does not make it so.

The argument stands on its own. It doesn't matter how I feel about it, how you feel about it, how they feel about it.

[Bust Nak]

You are correct, I didn't give any support to any of the premises. Why? Because I thought that most of you would agree with P1, so I felt that there was no need to support it.

And I was correct, most of you do agree with P1 and after P1 is established, then the rest of the argument flows just as naturally/logically as one would expect a logically valid and sound argument to flow.

Most of us agree with P1? Well, I went back and did a count - 4 out of 13 people accepted P1, one of whom have since stated he changed his mind. Granted it is sometimes hard to tell if someone is accepting or rejecting P1 if they don't explicitly states so, but it's pretty conclusive that it is not most of us.

Besides, regardless of how many us agree with P1, if you accepted that you didn't give support to P1, and the whole thing hinges on that unsupported premise, then my original counter-argument holds - the Modal Ontological Argument is question begging, and depends entirely on defining God as a necessary being.