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?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 29 by Bust Nak]

No I don't if by God you mean the entity talked about by the bible. The claim is made that that entity is necessary but I don't accept it. The person (s) making the claim have yet to provide a convincing argument or more importantly evidence that their entity is necessary. It is just assumed.

RESPONSE: Getting down to basics, we have to accept one of two contradictory options.

1. Something was always in existence.

2. Something came from nothing.

If one begins to explore option 1, then the question becomes what are the properties of whatever was always in existence.

For example, whatever always existed contains everything that now exists. If not, then we're back to (at least) something from nothing.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 29 by Bust Nak]

2) If something possibly exists, then it follows trivially that it exists in some possible world(s). They are logically equivalent and accepted as an axiom of modal logic.

If this is trivial to explain, could you please explain it to me or point me to a reference that explains it?

I'm getting tripped up on how something goes from being possible (0% to 100% chance) to actually existing somewhere (anywhere). It seems like sleight of hand.

I freely admit that probability theory is not my strong suit.

[rikuoamero]

I'd like to ask For_the_Kingdom a question.

Why create this thread? I would be VERY surprised indeed if anyone on my side of the debate had never encountered the modal ontological argument before.
So why present it? The thread reads like it came from William Lane Craig verbatim. There's nothing in the OP that I can see is unique, or looks to have been Kingdom's spin on it.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 32 by benchwarmer]

Try the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic

Basically, let say you are rolling a die and there are only six possible out come, a 1 to 6 equal possibility. Think of this as six possible world, one where you rolled a 1, another where you rolled a 2 and so one. That's how a mere chance "becomes a reality" of a possible world, it's just looking at the same thing from a different perspective.

So what has to be true, is true is every possible world, there is no possible where it is not true.
What has to be false, is false is every possible world, there is no possible where it is not false.
What depends on possibilities, is true in some possible worlds and false in other possible worlds.

[For_The_Kingdom]

From the OP:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists

It's possible one don't.

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

If it's possible one don't, then one don't.

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

If it don't exist in some possible world, then it don't exist in any of 'em.

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

If it don't exist in every possible world, it don't exist in this'n.

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

If it don't exist in the actual world, it don't exist.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Therefore, it don't.


That's the great thing about "possible", it allows me to think I just might be me the smartest man the world has ever known. 'Til I get in an argument with the pretty thing. Then, well, I become the dumbest'n.

...
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.

Indictave of one who'd put hands over his own ears, if he had to borrow someone else's to do it, and then set to shoutin'.

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?

Or, one can just read it, and conlude "possible" doesn't mean and there he sits right there.

The fact that you think this is some "it is possible for God to exist, and it is also possible for God to NOT exist" situation...lets me know that you fail to understand the argument.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 34 by Bust Nak]

Try the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic

Thank you Bust Nak! Although my brain melted a little trying to follow the article, I very much appreciate the link.

Basically, let say you are rolling a die and there are only six possible out come, a 1 to 6 equal possibility. Think of this as six possible world, one where you rolled a 1, another where you rolled a 2 and so one. That's how a mere chance "becomes a reality" of a possible world, it's just looking at the same thing from a different perspective.

Ok, I think I follow you. However, in the above example you are assuming an equal probability. For a six sided die this is reasonable based on my experience with them (though if you want to be technical there is also some slim possibility the die could land on an edge and stay there in the perfect conditions).

Bringing this back to the OP I think what is being said is that there is a possible world where a MGB does exist. Ok, the possibility of that world existing is still between 0 and 100 percent. So haven't we just shifted which thing is possible? i.e. what's been created is a wrapper. First we had a thing that might be possible. Then we said that the thing exists, but put it in a wrapper that only has a possibility of existing. If the wrapper doesn't exist, neither does what is inside it.

So what has to be true, is true is every possible world, there is no possible where it is not true.

So just by granting in one possible world (where the possibility could be 0) something is true, we have to grant that in all other possible worlds? If the possibility of the world where the truth is being defined does not exist, then doesn't the truth go away too? See wrapper explanation above.

[wiploc]

Necessary truths are truths that are either true or false REGARDLESS of the circumstances.

True regardless, not true or false regardless.

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).

Don't overstate your case. God as defined for this argument is maximally great. Don't pretend this is a traditional definition.

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)

Pretty weird definition of omnibenevolent. I don't see how it helps or hurts your argument, but it's weird.

…an ultimately, such a being is necessary in its existence (such a being cannot fail/cease to exist).

Big mistake. Now you'll never get us past the first premise. Plantinga's genius (besides writing in an almost opaque style so that few people could find his errors) was in getting us to agree to

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

before telling us that that god can't really exist:

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

Because there are possible worlds without gods, we know that no god exists in every possible world.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world (our world).

5. If a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exist.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.

Proof positive that there is no god, according to your logic.

Of course, most of you will agree that it is possible for a MGB to exist.

Nonsense.

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�.

But we aren't going to say that is possible, because it clearly isn't. Some possible worlds are godless. Such worlds are not contradictory, so they are possible. Therefore no god exists in any possible world. Therefore no MGB exists in any possible world.

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.

I love the arrogant tone. You made a stupid argument, easily refutable, and you think we are stupid and inferior for not being persuaded by you nonsense.

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?

[/quote]

P1 is false because P3 defines a god who cannot possibly exist in any possible world.

In addition, your argument is easily reversible, as I did (by adding boldface) above. It proves that god does not exist just as easily as it proves he does. Any argument that proves both A and not-A is worthless. Therefore, your argument is worthless. In the scales of persuasion, it weighs nothing.

So now you have two compelling refutations:
1. P1 cannot be true once P3 defines god in a way that makes its existence impossible, and
2. The logic of the argument proves gods nonexistence as easily as it proves gods existence.

That's not putting our hands over our ears and singing that we can't hear you. It is two separate compelling refutations.

If you care about logic, you should never try to use this argument again.

[Danmark]

1. It is possible that a maximally great Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

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

3. If a maximally great Flying Spaghetti Monster in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

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

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

6. Therefore, a maximally great Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

This is every bit as valid as the argument in the OP, which is to say it is invalid.
Saint Anselm, or whoever first came up with this bit of nonsense, should be ashamed.

The ontological argument is essentially an argument a priori:
God exists because I say he does.

The 'cheat' in the argument is that one can easily propose that there is something that is 'the greatest,' and be correct. That 'greatest' need not be a god and cannot be something imaginary.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 35:

The fact that you think this is some "it is possible for God to exist, and it is also possible for God to NOT exist" situation...lets me know that you fail to understand the argument.

That you fail to understand the failure of "it's possible so therefore it is" lets us all know you fail to understand your own argument.

That something's possible does not mean it's real.

It's possible I'm Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.

[Danmark]

I am surprised this wasn't censored. You just called a good number of people here fools and some of the greatest minds of history: i.e. Galileo, Newton, Einstein.

Theism has been held by an overwhelming number of intelligent people, I think you need to give reasons for this accusation of foolishness rather than just mud-sling.

Are you seriously invoking the ad populum argument? This is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. At one time most people believed the Earth was flat and lightning was Zeus throwing thunderbolts. No one believed in the germ theory of disease or in evolution at one point. We've [most of us] have outgrown the idea of a god being a necessity for explaining natural phenomena. Intelligent people have believed foolish things. That is hardly a reason to justify continued belief in those foolish things.