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 falseor 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 isnt 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, its possible.

That being said; lets 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, Id 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 Gods 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, Gods 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, youve 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 dont think that you can, can you?

[rikuoamero]

Also, I'm just here to point out we STILL have no KCA thread. STILL. It's what...going on two weeks now since Kingdom first mentioned it and promised to create that thread?

[wiploc]

Now, I wait anxiously for this back peddling crap, "No, God's existence is not possible". LOL

It depends on the god. Necessary gods are not possible.

If you start your argument by getting us to admit that some gods are possible in P1, and don't get around to mentioning that your particular god is impossible until P3, then you are forcing people to backpedal.

[Artie]

Kingdom:

I haven't answered your every post since they're pretty much covered by the others here. Instead for those who are seriously interested here are some detailed explanations why the MOA and other ontological arguments fail.

I especially recommend this article: http://www.defenseofreason.com/modal-on ... -argument/

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ ... ogical.htm
http://godlessons.com/?p=1457
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? ... l_argument
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontol ... #PlaOntArg

[Willum]

Rundle does not reject the notion of necessary existence. What has necessary existence is causally independent. Matter has necessary existence, for though it undergoes change, the given volume of matter found in the universe persists, and as persisting matter does not have or need a cause. This accords with the Principle of Conservation of Mass-Energy, according to which matter and energy are never lost but rather transmute into each other. As indestructible, then, matter is the necessary being (147). Hence, though the material components of the universe are contingent vis- -vis their form, they are necessary vis- -vis their existence. On this reading, there is not one but many necessary beings, all internal to the universe.

Source; Stanford Press
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmo ... -argument/

That should blow your argument away.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 336 by For_The_Kingdom]

Because the truth value of P1 is independent of any questions of "why". As I told someone else, even if I don't know why such a being is necessary, that has NOTHING to do with whether it is POSSIBLE for a being to exist necessarily...which is the contention of P1.

Since the truth value of P1 is irrelevant to "why", I am under no obligation to answer it.

There we have it folks. The one thing that is the linchpin of his argument, P1, we ask why we should accept it, why it is 'true'...and FTK says he is under no obligation to answer it. It is just plainly a truth apparently, something that is true, something that somehow needs no explanation.

I think we're done here, aren't we folks? There's nothing more to be discussed about the MOA, at least not in my eyes. We've got its proponent down to the point of saying that the linchpin of his argument does not need to be justified, it's just true for literally no reason.

------
FTK, the MOA is an invalid argument, at the very least your usage of it is. You're trying to convince someone else that this being you believe exists, exists. However, what you did is invalid. You had the thing you believe exists as not failing to exist in the preface BEFORE you laid out the premises. In other words, it was rigged to give the result you want, and not any other result. When asked why we should accept P1, you refuse to answer it.

I was just about to request for the 6th time FTK justify his agency's definition. Turns out he has, and his answer is " I don't wanna and you can't make me."

Riku is correct, folks. Nothing left to see here. Show's over on account of foul play.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 361 by Inigo Montoya]

Riku is correct, folks. Nothing left to see here. Show's over on account of foul play.

Thank goodness, my popcorn just ran out. I was going to try and scam some of Riku's pizza next, but that would probably just warrant another duel challenge.

I gave up trying to tilt at this windmill when it became obvious that the first premise was a word game and I recanted my support.

On the plus side, thanks to some of the great responses here I have learned something about modal logic. It wasn't a total waste of time

[For_The_Kingdom]

For_The_Kingdom

Hi, I mean no disrespect, but it's like you don't understand what I consider to be very simple questions. Many people are asking you these in one form or another. I think it really would be important that you answer them.

Oh really?

FTK.. he isn't asking IF P1 is true, he is asking WHY P1 is true.

If God's existence is possible, God must exist. You don't seem to understand the questions

First off, I did and do understand the question...and I disagreed with your assessment of what he asked, so I simply reiterated my point.

1. WHY should we accept that P1 is true? It might NOT be true, it might BE a false statement. There might not BE any such possible world. How do WE know?

I've already answered this question, and I refuse to answer it again, to anyone.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Like, name one thing he did that was perfect, that doesn't rely on a magical future state, or by putting perfection in the definition.

Everything that he does is perfect in the sense that it accomplishes what he wants to accomplish...he never misses the mark. So it is not just one thing, it is every single thing.

You're talking to US like this is our first rodeo, but we've been countering this ingenuous line of reasoning you are relying on for quite sometime, here, I will repeat:

The Universe began to exist as you so naively put it, when matter changed from one state to another.

KCA thread.

It existed before in one state, transformed into another, eventually solidifying into reality as we know it. So, what you call a beginning, wasn't a creation.

Tell me you can see the difference.

I can "see the difference" between the MOA, and the KCA, yes. Save the above for the KCA thread.

Why is it whenever I attempt to show you decisively how 2 + 2 does not equal 4 you decline? Only because it would destroy your neat argument?

I don't recall declining.

Finally, I see no need for this necessary being. It's not needed for creation, nor life, nor anything I can think of, as anyone with a modern education should realize. What's it needed for?

Thanks for giving me your opinion of the matter. I will give you mines; I see a need for a necessary being. It is needed for creation, life, and anything that I can think of...despite modern education.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I don't feel like being talked down to. That's what I feel when I read "Cmon, now, people".

Sorry you feel that way.

I'm not IN your seminar. I didn't PAY YOU to lead me. If you want me to COME ON, you will have to CONVINCE ME TO COME ON.

I'm not feeling like being LED today without REASON.

Now, as to that fine bit of assertion above, you would have to GIVE ME A REASON to believe it. COME ON isn't a reason.

If you ain't convinced now, you probably will never be. I am pass the convincing at this point...now, I am simply defending the soundness and validity of an argument that supports the existence of God, whether one is convinced by it or not.

Not only that, but even within my own religion (Christianity)...we know that some people won't be convinced even if the Holy Spirit slapped them upside the head.

COME ON is an expression of frustration that you aren't being as CONVINCING to us as you are to yourself. That happens in here.

Read the context of every single time I said COME ON, and paste it into one post..and you will see it has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not it is convincing to you guys.

"nothing that begins to exist can exist due to the necessity of its own nature"

What kind of word salad is THAT?
I don't even know what you mean.

How does ANYTHING exist "due to the necessity of it's own nature"?
Do you propose a MECHANISM by which that can happen?

Or a religious belief?

It means that some things just exist necessarily without any pre-deterministic factors being involved. God is such.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 364 by For_The_Kingdom]

Everything that he does is perfect in the sense that it accomplishes what he wants to accomplish...he never misses the mark. So it is not just one thing, it is every single thing.

So God is an idiot who wants to destroy the Earth? Great definition of perfection.
I have no idea what KCA thread is, and just because you say KCA thread, doesn't mean your logical arguement isn't toast because of a physical one. See the TT thread.

I do know you are simply not reading other peoples' posts.

That sure of what we are saying, huh?

Finally, I present no opinion. There is no need for your necessary being. It doesn't explain anything, without it, nothing would change, it doesn't do anything, etc., etc..

Show me how anything would change if your necessary being disappeared tomorrow. Zilch.