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?

[For_The_Kingdom]

So I am pointing out that to meet your challenge there only need be an example in which your assertion may be false. To that end I gave two counter examples. In these examples it is possible that the proposition is possibly necessary true but actually false. Exactly what you said could never happen.

Notice that my whole "2+2=4 in all possible worlds" challenge wasn't addressed in NONE of this post that I am responding to.

You just continue to emphasize your prior counter examples, which does nothing to address or undermine the challenge that was made to you.

Thank you for acknowledging the counter examples as contingent truths. This means your claim - a proposition cannot be possibly necessarily true, but actually false. It aint happening..and nothing you've said can negate that fact - is not true.

To sustain your original position you have to demonstrate how the counter examples can never be true.

A contingent truth cannot be possibly necessarily true, though..you are conflating two different concepts...why? I don't know.

Until you address the challenge that was issued to you, my responses to you will continue to be short and sweet. I refuse to get sucked into any more gish gallop without my points getting addressed.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That is not a defensible claim. Atheist definitions of good and evil can be just as objective as theist definitions. Theist definitions can be just as subjective as atheist definitions. I don't see how gods come into it.

I do.

Link please.

Patience is virtue.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You can only call it valid if you agree that this is valid too:

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

Then you'd have to show that a MGB is internally inconsistent and cannot possibly exist. Can you do that? No, you can't.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That argument applies equally to your god.

Not if P1 is true, which it is.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Morality doesn't come into it.

If a god is were
able to prevent all evil, and
smart enough to prevent all evil, and
determined to prevent all evil,
then that god would prevent all evil.

God may have morally sufficient reasons for permitting some evil, though.

Therefore, if evil exists, no such god exists.

Ok, so on atheism, evil doesn't exist, then. Science doesn't tell us what is good, and what is evil...so what is the basis or foundation of objective morality? There is none.

Oh, and btw..you can have the last word in this regard...since it isn't until I started my own thread that I am now a firm believer of sticking to the topic of the thread and not conflating other arguments into one thread.

That's only a "problem" for those who believe evil exists

Then it is a problem for most atheists...because they are the ones that are proponents of the infamous argument from evil.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

Oh, then I shouldn't see another post from you in this thread? Cool.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You proved that Jake the necessary gumdrop doesn't exist.
I proved that Jehovah the necessary god doesn't exist.

The two arguments have exactly the same defeat.

Nonsense. Your argument was internally absurd. What happened was, you tried to fancy up the definition of this "Jake" being, and in the process you ended up defining Jake as some thing that cannot possibly exist.

It was obvious, and I pointed it out. Now you are trying to place your absurd concept of Jake onto my rational definition of the MGB as defined in the MOA...and it ain't happening.

[For_The_Kingdom]

1. Who made that rule? Why should anybody accept it?

First, you have to know what "necessity of its own nature means".

2. I'm not sure that "can exist due to the necessity of its own nature" isn't gibberish.

Ok...so where did the #1 come from? Did it begin to exist, or does it exist due to the necessity of its nature? (conceptual construct).

How would that work? Is it just a circular argument, like, "God is necessary, therefore god exists."

But that isn't the argument, is it?

3. This argument is based on equivocation, on surreptitiously two-stepping between two incompatible definitions. "A specious argument, the like of which would prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse." There is no single definition of "began" or "begins" that will allow your god to be unbegun while the rest of the universe is begun. If you stick with any one meaning of "begun," then both (god and the rest of the universe) will be begun or both will be unbegun.

I'm guessing you dug that quote from under one of those atheist sites that attempts to debunk the KCA, right?

[For_The_Kingdom]

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?

Did I ever say when I was going to create the KCA thread?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Necessary gods are not possible.

Easy to say, difficult to articulate why.

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.

The entire OP was geared towards defining and giving an argument of the MGB as identified in the argument.

If you admitted that the existence of such a being is possible, then the rest takes care of itself.

It isn't until the realization of the implication of P1 that people began to backpedal.