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?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 49 by Divine Insight]

We have to define the "anything" AS a maximally great thing, or "necessary".

So, you forgot to add 'maximally great" ahead of your "____________". That's an important part of the argument, in my opinion.

In that case we would need a very precise formal definition for what is meant by "great".

Until then the argument would be meaningless.

I think that by MGB they mean a necessary being.. it just HAS to exist.

So, as in all ontological arguments, they just DEFINE the god into existence by a bit of word play. Bingo boingo.. University tenure.

Pretty good gig, if you can get it.

And then they demand that you accept this premise lest they brand you as being an idiot.

In the OP he states, "Of course, most of you will agree that it is possible for a MGB to exist.".

Why? It hasn't even been well-defined what an MGB even entails. Or why it should exist in the first place. Moreover, if "Greatness" is defined, or depends on anything beyond the MGB (which it necessarily must), then everything else must exists BEFORE this MGB could exist. Therefore the MGB could not be the creator of anything.

So it's a lose-lose approach to an argument for Christianity anyway.

[Kenisaw]

[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.

Since they are both absurd, there is no play left for the creationist attempt to explain the origins of their divine creature...

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 51 by Divine Insight]

Hi, Divine Insight.

And then they demand that you accept this premise lest they brand you as being an idiot.

In the OP he states, "Of course, most of you will agree that it is possible for a MGB to exist.".

Why? It hasn't even been well-defined what an MGB even entails.

But I can accept that an MGB can exist in SOME possible world. Everything can exist in SOME possible world, after all, even poorly defined concepts. I don't have a problem granting that possibility at all.

Of course, I give it as much PROBABILITY as Santa existing in some possible world.
Not saying very much, is it?

Or why it should exist in the first place.

I think we can get the SHOULD.. if the argument works. It would be a LOGICAL "should".

Moreover, if "Greatness" is defined, or depends on anything beyond the MGB (which it necessarily must), then everything else must exists BEFORE this MGB could exist. Therefore the MGB could not be the creator of anything.

I don't think that an MGB can depend on anything else for it's existence or it wouldn't BE maximally great the way that GOD is. It would be perhaps, ALMOST maximally great, the way that I am.

So it's a lose-lose approach to an argument for Christianity anyway.

Well, I think that all arguments for the existence of God suffer from definition problems. Just what DO they mean by the term? ... very very vague indeed. It's three, its one, its three in one its in time its out, it's in and out.. Oh well... not my problem to define.,

[JoeyKnothead]

Just replace Maximally Great Being, with "no God" and we have:

The Atheist's Version of the Modal Ontological Argument that no God exists:

1. It is possible that no God exists.

2. If it is possible that no God exists, then no God exists in some possible world.

3. If no God exists in some possible world, then no God exists in every possible world.

4. If no God exists in every possible world, then no God exists in the actual world (our world).

5. If no God exists in the actual world, then no God exists.

6. Therefore, no God exists.

Pretty much what I said in my Post 7.

The OP presents a flawed argument specifically for this reason.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 47 by Bust Nak]

The OP goes beyond "might be possible," it is saying it is possible. i.e the chance is non-zero, the premise is that the chance is 0.00....00001% to 100%.

Ah, the light bulb finally went off Thank you Bust Nak. I was erroneously including 0% chance among the definition of possible.

So then I guess I reject the argument at premise 1 with my new found knowledge.

I assumed premise 1 said there is between 0 to 100 percent (inclusive of 0 and 100) chance a MGB exists. When in fact it sneakily hides the fact that there is no 0 percent in the given terms.

[Kenisaw]

But a necessary truth cannot be possibly true, but actually false. If something is merely possible, yet false, then there should be a set of circumstances which will allow the now false proposition to become true.

For example...

Can I bench press 300lbs? No. Is it possible for me to bench press 300 lbs? Yes. Now, how can I make that possibility a reality? By going to the gym frequently, and building up my muscle strength.

So, this is an example of something that is possibly true, but actually false. Yet, there are a set of circumstances that will allow the statement to be possibly true, but also, actually true.

In the case with a MGB...you admitted that the existence of a MGB is possible...well, if the existence of a MGB is possibly true, but actually false....can you articulate a set of circumstances that will allow a MGB's existence to be possibly true, and actually true (in the same sense of the bench pressing example)?

More than likely, you can't. Because all necessary truths that are possible, are actual. If the existence of God is possible, it can't be possible based on contingent circumstances, because necessary truths are INDEPENDENT of contingent circumstances.

All well and fine if you can show that a MGB is necessary. We all know you can't though, because if you could show that a MGB creature was necessary you wouldn't need to use false logic attempts like the OP to backdoor the thing. Your argument does not state that it is necessary, only that it is possible. If it is necessary that cancels out "possible". So the only way to construct a proper argument is to say that it is necessary, which you can't do because no one in the entire history of religious dogma has ever been able to substantiate that claim.

Let Craig know that we humble members of Debating Christianity & Religion have thrashed his argument, will ya? Thanks.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 47 by Bust Nak]

The OP goes beyond "might be possible," it is saying it is possible. i.e the chance is non-zero, the premise is that the chance is 0.00....00001% to 100%.

Ah, the light bulb finally went off Thank you Bust Nak. I was erroneously including 0% chance among the definition of possible.

So then I guess I reject the argument at premise 1 with my new found knowledge.

I assumed premise 1 said there is between 0 to 100 percent (inclusive of 0 and 100) chance a MGB exists. When in fact it sneakily hides the fact that there is no 0 percent in the given terms.

And that right there is why I don't like the OM argument, and think it is bogus. It's a cheat. Instead of establishing with mathematics why the possibility is not-0%, it, as you say, sneaks past that and makes it somewhere between 0 to 100%, exclusive of 0 and eventually, with a bit of word play, ending up at 100%.

I wouldn't be surprised if Kingdom responded with "But all those unicorns and FSMs you guys respond with, those entities aren't necessary!" to which I'll respond by saying "How do you know? Why do you get to define what proposed supernatural entity is and isn't necessary, and all without evidence of any kind? If you're to be allowed to present the Christian God as being a necessary being that exists in all possible worlds, then I too must be allowed to present the Flying Spaghetti Monster as being a necessary being that exists in all possible worlds...and beats up your god".

[Divine Insight]

But I can accept that an MGB can exist in SOME possible world. Everything can exist in SOME possible world, after all, even poorly defined concepts. I don't have a problem granting that possibility at all.

But why even grant that in a discussion of something based on logical formalism?

Shouldn't the question be, "Can an MGB exist in some LOGICAL world?"

The answer to that question may very well be no. For example, could a "Maximally Great Being" create a rock so heaven that even it cannot lift it? If it could then it wouldn't "Maximally Great" because it wouldn't be able to lift that rock. And if it could create such a rock, then how could it be called "Maximally Great" since it would be restricted by the same laws of logic as everything else is restricted by?

So I think the very premise that an MGB could exist in any logical world is already a logical oxymoron before any further logical analysis is even applied.

[Divine Insight]

Just replace Maximally Great Being, with "no God" and we have:

The Atheist's Version of the Modal Ontological Argument that no God exists:

1. It is possible that no God exists.

2. If it is possible that no God exists, then no God exists in some possible world.

3. If no God exists in some possible world, then no God exists in every possible world.

4. If no God exists in every possible world, then no God exists in the actual world (our world).

5. If no God exists in the actual world, then no God exists.

6. Therefore, no God exists.

Pretty much what I said in my Post 7.

The OP presents a flawed argument specifically for this reason.

Very true.

And if a God doesn't exist then it MAXIMALLY doesn't exist, so it satisfies the requirement of being Maximally Non-existent.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 58 by Divine Insight]

Hi, Divine Insight

I'm getting out of my depth REAL quick.
But since I have two cents.. here goes:

But I can accept that an MGB can exist in SOME possible world. Everything can exist in SOME possible world, after all, even poorly defined concepts. I don't have a problem granting that possibility at all.

But why even grant that in a discussion of something based on logical formalism?

Shouldn't the question be, "Can an MGB exist in some LOGICAL world?"

The answer to that question may very well be no.For example, could a "Maximally Great Being" create a rock so heaven that even it cannot lift it? If it could then it wouldn't "Maximally Great" because it wouldn't be able to lift that rock. And if it could create such a rock, then how could it be called "Maximally Great" since it would be restricted by the same laws of logic as everything else is restricted by?

We have no idea, so, why not say it's possible? If you say that it's IMPOSSIBLE.. then you have to go out there, in some possible world, and PROVE that it's impossible. Pack a lunch, this might take a while.

But I don't think that a married bachelor or a rock so heavy that a god can't lift it can exist in ANY possible world, so I don't have to really bother with that. I think they usually mean a logically possible world. But, admittedly, as soon as I try to read up on what "possible worlds" means, my eyes get crossed. It's DENSE reading.

So I think the very premise that an MGB could exist in any logical world is already a logical oxymoron before any further logical analysis is even applied.

I think that we can come up with some logically incoherent ideas that could NOT be said to exist in any possible world, and there ARE a lot of problems defining the "God" concept, or indeed, the MGB concept.

But I don't think that the MGB concept is incoherent, like a married bachelor, it's just very UNLIKELY... more like Santa, so I have no trouble granting that the MGB, like Santa, can exist in some POSSIBLE WORLD. I grant that magic possibility every time I pick up a fantasy book. I'm a fan of those. As long as I grant the premise that magic is real.. bingo.. great hootin' story.

I think it's Plantinga that came up with this doozie of an argument. I think that in some circles, he is highly regarded. I'm trying to read one of his current books..."Where to problem lies".. and it's GHASTLY. It's one of those fantasy books that I don't like as much. LOTS of premise, LITTLE hootin' good story.

William Lane Craig seems to be a fan of his.. maybe that's an indication of the quality of thinking that goes into modern theology.

And I use the term "quality" loosely.