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 77 by For_The_Kingdom]

which means that in the same sense that 2+2=4 is necessarily true and under no circumstances will it ever become untrue...in that same sense, God's existence is true, and under no circumstances will it become untrue.

This part of your comment contradicts the earlier part here

Because all propositions that are possibly necessarily true must be actually true. So in other words, if it was possible that 2+2=7, then 2+2 would actually = 7, wouldn't it? In the same tune, if it is possible for a MGB to exist, it would actually exist, wouldn't it?

If I'm reading you right, in the first quote there (I know you said them in a different order, but I flipped them for a reason), you said that 2+2=4 is necessarily true and under NO CIRCUMSTANCES can it ever be untrue. 2+2 WILL ALWAYS equal 4 and with this in mind, God's existence is true.

You then say that if there is a possibility of 2+2 equaling 7 (not 4), there is a world where that is true and therefore it is possible for a MGB to exist.
Your logic is all over the place. You're not allowing your argument to be falsified. On the one hand you're saying this logical necessity, that can't be anything else, makes it possible for your god. Then, on the other hand, you're saying that the VERY SAME logical necessity can have a different value and that somehow this too makes it possible for your god.
You're violating the laws of logic. You've got A=NotA there. 2+2=4 and 2+2=7, it can only ever be 4, under no circumstances can it be anything else...but it is possible for it to equal 7 in some other world.

[Willum]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

OMG, you are so wrong, and you demonstrated that you don't have the ability to parameterize something less than a APE, so you certainly have no ability to speak even abstractly about any kind of APE.

You are not talking about a creator, because, as you have failed to acknowledge, the building blocks of the Universe; protons, electrons and their transformations, do not need a creator. They are observably and demonstratively immortal.

They are observably and demonstratively immortal.
They are observably and demonstratively immortal.
They are observably and demonstratively immortal.

This beginning of the Universe you so proudly pronounce as your trump card, is just another state of these fundamental particles. No creator needed. Like I mentioned to you: Bosons. If you compress protons and electrons, you get neutrons, compress neutrons, you get Bosons.

As for your comment about thermodynamics being magically different before creation. 1. Do you have any magic justification for that? Because otherwise it shows that you are completely ignorant of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics strength has nothing to do with beginnings or endings. It has to do with the particles, energies and available states. It does not change because of time, or indeed anything.

The God you have demonstrated you DO NOT remotely have the capacity to envision, cannot be shown to out-endure elementary particles. It can't even be shown to exist.

Yet elementary particles can be shown to exist forever, without a creator.

I am not sure how much clearer this can be. A proton, left to its own, will exist ten minutes from now, ten minutes ago, ten million years from now, ten million years ago.

One hundred trillion years from now, one hundred trillion years ago.

Before the creation event, that is your trump card, but not all the matter in the Universe is accounted for by any creation event, therefor, elementary particles could easily exist around it.

If you are talking about a Biblical God, even if we accept everything you say from the Bible as true, you can not justify God predating the creation of the Earth. You certainly have no claims on it being the first cause.

You are not clever by proposing that before a creation event occurred, there was a creator, because, the creation event, was just a transformation from Bosons to the particles we are familiar with.

I am not sure how this can be clearer.

Hi 'Kingdom:

I'd really like you to answer how physically observable proof is overwhelmed by a logical argument.

[Inigo Montoya]

Someone explain to my simple arse why this god is "necessary" apart from being defined as such for the sake of argument.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to Danmark]

Yup brilliance is no guarantee that you will not suffer from the lack of critical thinking......

Einstein called Newton the greatest mind in human history..........it would be hard to argue that point. But Newton also lost his family fortune in the east India tea trading scandal.....

His emotional tie up into making money superseded all the genius because he was emotionally involved in the fast buck......and as a result lacked the critical thinking skills to avoid the scam........

You see this with people emotionally or desperately involved with multi level marketing scams..............

IQ and genius is no assurance of your ability to not be mislead...........lack of critical thinking can get the best of us..

Newton was so obsessed with the God of the Bible that he gave up on planetary accretion disk formation in our solar system and attributed it to God's divine hand.........in less that 80 years we had the answer all figured out by the math Newton had already applied but gave up using because of his emotional ties to God.

In a nutshell you must remain emotionally neutral to exercise critical thinking effectively in many situations.

Woody Allen put it best..

There are no geniuses with hard ons........

[Danmark]

But that is the point, the argument makes a case for "such a being". It doesn't state who the being is and how the being manifests itself. It doesn't matter what you "call" it.

Thank you. It is helpful to point out as you have, that the ontological argument makes no case for any particular 'god.' It merely argues for the concept of a god. To that effect, the counter arguments that consist of substituting the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other 'greatest being' are not strictly philosophical. Rather, they suggest the absurdity of applying philosophers' word games to reality.

It is also important to note that the ontological argument, in its several forms [modal or otherwise] have almost always been applied to only one 'god;' the mythical YHWH of the Jewish Bible and the Christian 'New Testament.'

In any case, the argument falls flatter than the flat Earth suggested by scripture.

[Furrowed Brow]

The implicit condition is moot to say the least. We cannot be certain about the premise, therefore the argument may not be sound.

It is sound.

To be sound the argument needs to be both valid i.e. the conclusion follows from the premise, and all the premises need to be true.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists

Point 1 is a premise. It is not proven true or self evidently true. Several other commentators including myself have made the point there is an epistemological/ontological (metaphysical) divide. You may say most folk admit a maximally great being is possible but as pointed out the point is only granted on epistemological grounds. Maybe in reality it is not possible, but lack of knowledge on the subject means we don't really know and a MGB may well be impossible. Thus the argument relies on an equivocation over what is meant by "possible". Someone else has has already made the point neatly when they said when they say something is possible they mean this in the weak sense it may be possible or it may be impossible. People also often mean contingent when they use the world possible. In modal logical it is standard to define contingent as "possibly true and possibly false". Until you've ascertained what people actually mean it would be more accurate to put a question mark after the word i.e. "possible?", or just replace the word possible with uncertain, or contingent.

• 1. It is uncertain that a maximally great being exists

If the word "possible" is used without invoking uncertainty, i'e it invites a metaphysical possibility, the argument begs the question.

When is it recognised the use of the word "possible" invites uncertainty then it is clear how the final conclusion goes awry. If we wish to avoid epistemic logics then in modal we may also write...

• 1. It is contingent (possible and it is possible not) that a maximally great being exists

I suspect most people when they talk about possibility likely mean uncertainty or contingency. To build an argument that insists they must mean something else is moot and it is safer to check what they really mean.

If it is conceivable, there is a possible world at which the proposition that it relates to is true...

It is conceivable but we don't know if it is metaphysical possibility. For example, after watching Star Trek it is possible to conceive of warp drive, but maybe there are no possible worlds in which warp drive actually works. It is possible to conceive of impossible worlds and mistake them for metaphysical possibilities.

..and only logically sound propositions are conceivable,

This is moot if not plain false. Unsound arguments are conceivable.

• 1. No swans are black
  2. All ravens are black
  3. No Swans are ravens

This example argument is valid if we assume 1 is true, but the argument is not sound because 1 is not true.

so therefore, it is at least possible for God to exist....therefore, the premise is sound.

That is possible? with a question mark and a don't know shrug. Maybe such a thing is not possible.

Here is the argument again in a far less problematic form.

• 1. It may be possible that a maximally great being exists or it may be impossible.
  2. If it is maybe possible that a maximally great being exists, then maybe a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
  3. If maybe a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then maybe it exists in every possible world.
  4. If maybe a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then maybe it exists in the actual world (our world).
  5. If maybe a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
  6. Therefore, maybe a maximally great being exists.

This is the argument in its sound form. But clearly this is far weaker than what the original version of the argument sets out to achieve.

Also: it is not clear that if there were such a being this meets the criteria of a god let alone God.

But that is irrelevant to the argument. No matter what you call it, the fact of the matter is, no greater being can be conceived. Now, theists call the being that which no greater being can be conceived...we call that being "God".

What may be conceived and what may be real are two different things. A theist may conceive of a being without limits but that does not make such a being actually possible. If there are limits on what a maximally great being may do why call such a being God? If for example omniscience is impossible, or omnipotence is impossible. Maybe there is a maximally great being but none of the things a theist may attributed to God are ever actually possible. And here we find the modal argument begs the metaphysical question when it assumes that what it can conceive of is actually possible. Just as we may imagine time travel, but time travel may be impossible. Thus if there is a maximally great being such a being is precluded from time travel (if indeed time travel is impossible).

If necessary truths are possible, then they are true. If you admit that the existence of a MGB is possible, then by default, a MGB must exists.

But what do we mean by possible? I might say time travel is possible. That does not make it actually possible. It may be impossible. So saying it is possible just means I don't really know and I accept the option that it may be possible or it may be impossible. The argument you are deploying demands that when someone admits something is possible they are committed to metaphysical possibility and deny its impossibility. But most people don't really talk like that unless they are modal logicians. And if a modal logicians pins us down then we shrug and say we don't mean that, and the modal argument needs to be changed in light of the example weaker argument given above.

If something is "possible", then that possibility must be actualized in some possible word.

If we use the word possible as does a modal logical then yes ok if something is possible then there is a possible world in which that thing may be said to be true. This is a technical use of the word possible.

If it is possible for a MGB to exist, then there is at least one possible world at which he/it exists...but since his existence would be necessary (if he does exist), then he would have to exist in every & all possible worlds, which would include the actual world...ours.

There is a technical problem here. It boils down to the problem of how to define necessity. A problem that reveals itself in modal logic with hundreds of alternative systems each defining necessity slightly differently. The standard possible world semantics has for a long time been understood in light of Kripke frames. The definition of necessity you are using is a naive definition of necessity. This is better understood if we note Kripke introduced the accessibility relationship. For instance, a proposition is necessarily true in some world so long as it is true in every world accessible from that world. So for example there may be a class of self consistent worlds in which time travel is possible, and another class of worlds in which time travel is impossible. If the actual world falls in the class of worlds in which time travel is possible then the worlds in which it is not possible are not accessible (and vice versa). The point is that a necessary truth does not need to be true in every possible world, only every world accessible from the world under study usually called the actual world. The question for time travel is in which class does the actual world belong? Similarly there may be worlds in which omniscience is possible. But there may be other worlds i which it is not possible. If omniscience is possible in the actual world then the actual world cannot access worlds in which it is not possible (and vice versa). If we introduce the notion of a maximally greater being that exists in every world it may exist in worlds where time travel is possible and worlds where time travel is not possible, it may exists in worlds where omniscience is possible and worlds where omniscience is not possible. In which case is is a mistake to associated the idea of MGB with an omniscient God.

Right, but for necessary truths, all it takes is the mere possibility for the proposition to be true in order for it to be actually true.

But not if we mean contingent instead of possible. Necessity does not imply contingency, and contingency does not imply actuality.

[Artie]

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).

What if Christians defined God to be a maximally stupid being (MSB)? Would the rest of your logic still hold?

By maximally great, we mean that God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere at any given time)

But if you say he's present everywhere it means that God is everything and you must be a pantheist and not a Christian theist...

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

...
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.
...

As is far too common, we see the theist accusing dissenters, and being guilty of it themself.

"Probable" has not ever in history meant, "does", except in the mind of those who've clamped their hands over their ears so tight you'd ruin a hundred dollar wrecking bar trying to pry their hands from their heads.


Why is it theists have to redefine words, where "probable" all of a sudden means "and danged if it ain't"?

'Cause they can't show they speak truth.

And won't listen to the truth it is you can show.


But of course the theists, as is typical of their libelous books, can dismiss all opposition as "hands over the ears". And that's expected of 'em.

I'm just amazed with this'ns ability to type with his nose.

[For_The_Kingdom]

It's no good to think of atheists as SO BIASED as to just say that all theists arguments aren't valid WITHOUT giving good reasons why. US people might not be as ridiculously irrational as you make us out to be.

It's just a bad way to start off a conversation .. this "YOU PEOPLE" thing is completely unnecessary.

Unnecessary? Pun intended? LOL

I think that the argument fails to consider BOTH sides to possibilities, when it comes to the existence of maximally great beings. Because although it's possible that a maximally great being DOES exist, it's ALSO possible that one doesn't. And so, we need to make an argument that explores both possibilities, not just the one.

Necessary truths cannot be possibly true, but actually false...nor can they be actually false, but possibly could be true. It isn't until you understand and make the distinction between contingent/necessary truths..the sooner you do that, the lesser of a chance of you making such statements.

So, here is the other possibility, that a maximally great being DOESN'T exist, in the missing part two of what I think the argument should have:


1. It is possible that a maximally great being doesn't exist

The only way it wouldn't be possible for a MGB to exist is for the mere concept of such a being to be logically incoherent. However, you cannot demonstrate the absurdity, can you?

So, you have to admit that it is at least POSSIBLE for such a being to exist...and if it is possible, well...

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being doesn't exist, then a maximally great being doesn't exist in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being doesn't exist in some possible world, then it doesn't exist in every possible world.

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

5. If a maximally great being doesn't exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being doesn't exist.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being doesn't exist.

---


Now we have the TWO sides of the argument, one that concluded that a maximally great being exists, and one that concludes that a maximally great being doesn't exist.

It's complete.
What have we learned?

By changing what we are considering is possible, we can have completely opposing conclusions.

The first premise of your counter-argument is false...and every conclusion that is drawn from a false premises is just as equally false.

It's possible that a maximally great being exists, and it's also just as possible that none does.

Incorrect. A necessary truth cannot be possibly true, but equally possibly false. Sure, contingent truths can be as such, but not necessary truths.

So far, everyone that I've encountered on here as it relates to this argument have failed to distinguish the difference between contingency, and necessity...that is why I keep refering to "you people", because everyone does it.

You people..

1. Misunderstand the argument

2. Based on the misunderstanding, misrepresent the argument

3. Then after the misrepresentation, you think that you've somehow refuted the argument and then back yourselves on the back as if you've done something special.

But keep it up. I will be here to straighten you guys out.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I am granting that none of us possesses the superpower which would be required to know things to the exclusion of all alternate possibility.

Oh, we don't have to possess superpower. All we have to do is find out if there is any internal contradictions based on the mere concept of the subject matter...and the subject matter is a MGB.

Such a concept violates NO laws of logic...it is a logically valid/sound concept, making its existence at least possible.

Such a maximally great being MIGHT exist in some possible world. You are attempting to make the leap from "might exist" to "must exist." For which no evidence has been given.

Um, again...if a MGB exists, it exists NECESSARILY...and necessary truths are true in all possible worlds, not just one, or two...BUT ALL. A necessary truth cannot be true on Mars, but false on Earth.

Thats not how it works, Charlie. 2+2 =4 on Earth, Jupiter, Mars, the Moon, the Sun, and even in Heaven itself.

Yes... with qualifications. It is possible that a necessary being exists. With no evidence to support the existence of such a being however, there is no reason to suppose that such a being DOES exist. We are still sitting at zero. In other words, tail chasing.

You apparently just don't get it.

Within the line of possibility that you have established, it is perfectly possible that Popeye created the universe, making Popeye a necessary being. According to your line of reasoning. Nothing you have provided has established a link from "might" be true, to "must" be true however.

Popeye, in this context, is just another word for "God", buddy.

And you have simply developed a concept from a beginning point of no physical evidence, and then declared your resulting entreaty it to be the ONLY possible conclusion. That may serve to convince you, but it is unlikely to work on the rest of us.

Hey, if the premises of the argument is true (which they are), then the conclusion follows REGARDLESS of what one would like to think. Isn't it wonderful that truth value is independent of ones attitude towards it?

But, to your point...the argument may not be convincing to you, but it is convincing to me, and it just happens to support other arguments for theism.

YES! It us untrue to suppose that everything which can be imagined to be true IS true. There is NO reason to suppose, and EVERY reason to doubt, that all the things that can be imagined to BE true ARE true! And so it's SETTLED.

Ummmm, huh?

You have a clear and obvious problem with conceptualizing the difference between that which has been physically proven, and that which has been constructed out of a series of unsupported assumptions and assertions, and then declared to be proven. This doesn't even constitute a theory constructed of straw. Straw at least has physical properties.

Um, the premises are true, which makes the conclusion that follows also true. I understand that this may be a tough pill for you to swallow...but again, truth value is independent of your personal feelings towards it.

The major difference being that I don't have any physical evidence which would support the claim that any such being exists, now or ever, which would require a name or face to be applied to. We have been indulging ourselves in idle speculation which has led to no tangible conclusion. In other words, chasing our tails.

The fact that you are constantly bringing up the idea of physical evidence, that goes to show that you are stuck in your naturalistic views and you think that materialism is the only game in town and you are closed-minded to other tools that we use to knowledge...such as history, math, and philosophy.

And all of these "beings" have one thing in common. They cannot be established to exist physically, or exist in any way outside of the human imagination. The exact quality they share with your maximally great being.

I didn't know the establishing of any physical properties was necessary...but of course..