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?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 60 by Blastcat]

Let assume there IS an APE, or MGB, it would be much greater than the Sun right?

Well, the Sun doesn't have anywhere near infinite power, but it the most prominent thing in our world.

So lets assume this APE is near by, able to act, and local. If it were in anyway nearly as powerful as the Sun, how could we fail to notice it?

Because, despite wanting to be believed in... it hides like a prairie chicken.

Now you tell one.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 61 by Willum]

Hey Willum.. seeing you've got your creative hat on.

Let assume there IS an APE, or MGB, it would be much greater than the Sun right?

I missed the part about the APE... what's that?

Well, the Sun doesn't have anywhere near infinite power, but it the most prominent thing in our world.

Ok, it's pretty big, fo sho.

So lets assume this APE is near by, able to act, and local. If it were in anyway nearly as powerful as the Sun, how could we fail to notice it?

Well, it could be hiding BEHIND the sun...

Because, despite wanting to be believed in... it hides like a prairie chicken.

Now you tell one.

If I didn't know anything at all about any gods.. I think I could go for the sun... worship that. Sounds reasonable to me... But if I was living under a volcano... I think it might occur to me to pray to THAT, first, THEN the sun.

Or... feeling really creative now.. Make a PYRAMID.. that only LOOKS like a volcano.. pray to the SUN God... on a roll, on a roll.. and domestic CATS. Oh, and a Jesus, there's always got to be a Jesus.

So, I'd be believing in lots of gods. Cats, maybe dogs... a few snakes, there's always the ROCK god... drugs.. I'd have a drug god for sure... and Jesus.. because .. Hey... I mean Jesus, come on.

Still only guessing at what an APE is.. but I could do a King Kong if there's a Fay Wray in it for me.

Maybe I shouldn't worship that DRUG god so much, whaddaya think?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 62 by Blastcat]
BC, you don't read my posts, I'm hurt.
APE = All powerful entity.

The other examples of APEs you provided, volcanoes, cats, Jesus, etc., are just not as powerful as the Sun, and an APE must be inconceivably more powerful than the Sun.

Say an APE were floating around opposite the moon's orbit, for example. Even if it is respectfully hiding, how would it hid it's mass? How would it hide it's energy? It's zero sum game, you know, it takes as much energy to move a truck as it does to stop it. To hide something also requires power.

So, even if there were an APE hiding like a prairie chicken, we still should be able to find it.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 62 by Blastcat]
BC, you don't read my posts, I'm hurt.
APE = All powerful entity.

The other examples of APEs you provided, volcanoes, cats, Jesus, etc., are just not as powerful as the Sun, and an APE must be inconceivably more powerful than the Sun.

Say an APE were floating around opposite the moon's orbit, for example. Even if it is respectfully hiding, how would it hid it's mass? How would it hide it's energy? It's zero sum game, you know, it takes as much energy to move a truck as it does to stop it. To hide something also requires power.

So, even if there were an APE hiding like a prairie chicken, we still should be able to find it.

Like I said.. it's pot...and the cats.

All powerful and oh so cuddly.

[For_The_Kingdom]

No you can't, that was the premise of the Beyonder, he was beyond anything you can imagine. In fact, you have just admitted this concept is beyond what you can think of, because this APE was able to tuck himself into another Universe and not be in any others. Based on this, you can't even conceive of something like the Beyonder, so thinking of something greater, by you has just been shown false. This means your logic is suspect at that point.

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

In fact, the being that you call "Beyonder", is actually what we call "God". If Beyonder is omnipotent, ominscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, then that being is God.

God, with his omnipotence, can manifest himself into any being he chooses...and if he chooses to manifest himself as the Beyonder, or the Christ, or the FSM, he can do so.

So the be

Based on this, you can't even conceive of something like the Beyonder, so thinking of something greater, by you has just been shown false. This means your logic is suspect at that point.

I can imagine a being that "could do anything, anywhere, anytime". I call such a being "God".

Again, your knowledge of physics is now suspect. As you ignored the necessary physical constraints of such a creature. So, again you have put constraints on your ability to authoritatively argue for an APE.

How is the characteristics of God impossible?

All powerful for one. All-powerful means infinite energy, infinite energy means infinite mass. In order to do anything, this APE would also have to have structure, like a muscle, lever or even a magnetic field.
However, name any character you think it should have. But more importantly, before we run down that fools-errand, tell me the rationale for requiring such properties.
I think you'll find that the only reason your need APE characteristics is to explain something religious, that can't even be observed.

You called this...

All allegation, no substance. We can systematically deny or reject anything. But can we state reasons why we are denying/rejecting? Some can't. Most can't.

But you need to tell what an APE explains or does that it needs to exist at all. So, what does an APE do that the same system without an APE does not? If there isn't anything, then it is unsound to assume an APE.

There is a reasonable need. The answer to the question of "what could have created space, time, energy, and matter"...the answer to that question could not have existed within space, time, energy, and material realm, could it?

This is a good answer for anyone born BEFORE Isaac Newton. Or before understanding that matter and energy are conserved. Matter is neither created nor destroyed... Energy is neither created nor destroyed... only transformed.

Imagine we reverse time we see and observed what happened...
Heavier atoms become lighter ones in Suns.
Lighter elements become hydrogen (protons, neutrons and electrons-(pnes)).
If we track the Big Bang, that hydrogen compresses towards the center of the Universe getting denser until they form a huge Neutron Star. That "Star" becomes denser until it compresses to form Bosons in a massive Black Hole.

There is no need for creation. Especially if you imagine there is left over hydrogen, watching that entire process. Dark Matter is a sizable portion of the Universe, so this is not unreasonable.

Bottom line, no creator is needed. Matter is transformed, with no need for creation.

You are appealing to a law (first law of thermodynamics) that came into play only after the universe began to exist.

This statement is just wrong. You do not have a sufficient understanding of thermodynamics, again limiting your ability to take part in the conversation. Being nice, I'll ask, why you would make such a broad claim? What is your rationale for making such, what would be considered by most, a bad assumption?

Ok, so before the universe began to exist, where was the "potential" energy located to create it?

So again, energy is neither created nor destroyed. So, what YOU are obviously speaking about is your definition, or WORDS describing the universe. Those are only words. The energy was there in a form YOU have not defined.

Not to mention space(sic)

Though you seem to be being wry, it is an important point. Bosons are massive yet occupy no space. Difficult for most to imagine, but to make it simple... if you shine two flashlights at each other, the photons pass right though, even occupying the same space without interacting. Just imagine they are bosons, having mass, instead of photons, and that should about do it.

What good would E=mc2 do, before the existence of a finite universe?

I don't know what you mean, are you alleging again that physics stops working? Again, a very bold statement, one you can't make lightly. Provide a rationale, or withdraw it.

We require a First Cause.

No, there is no need for a first cause: Matter is neither created nor destroyed, it does not need a cause. Protons, neutrons and electrons are
OBSERVABLY AND DEMONSTRABLY IMMORTAL.
No conjecture or logic required.

So it is logical to compare immortal PNEs to conjectural APEs.
APEs loose.

Science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain.

No, that is logic. But I can see your confusion.

My religion told me that the universe began to exist while in the meantime scientists were telling me that the universe is eternal.

Come to find out, aha!! The universe began to exist, just as my religion told me. Hmmm.

The Universe, again is your definition. Matter always has and always will exist. It just looks different then you have previously imagined. (See point 1).[/quote]

[Artie]

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists

Existence isn't a property. If this being is omnipotent it would have to exist in the first place to be omnipotent so you have already defined the being into existence and made the whole rest of your list pointless.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 65 by Artie]

Indeed. Anyone interested can YouTube a video by Theoretical Bull***t on this, an 8 minute demolition of why this argument is terrible start to finish.

[For_The_Kingdom]

No you can't, that was the premise of the Beyonder, he was beyond anything you can imagine. In fact, you have just admitted this concept is beyond what you can think of, because this APE was able to tuck himself into another Universe and not be in any others. Based on this, you can't even conceive of something like the Beyonder, so thinking of something greater, by you has just been shown false. This means your logic is suspect at that point.

Based on this, you can't even conceive of something like the Beyonder, so thinking of something greater, by you has just been shown false. This means your logic is suspect at that point.

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.

In fact, the being that you call "Beyonder", is actually what we call "God". If Beyonder is omnipotent, ominscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, then that being is God.

God, with his omnipotence, can manifest himself into any being that he chooses...and if he chooses to manifest himself as the Beyonder, or the Christ, or the FSM, he can do so.

So your objection does not pose any threat to the legitimacy of the argument.

Again, your knowledge of physics is now suspect. As you ignored the necessary physical constraints of such a creature. So, again you have put constraints on your ability to authoritatively argue for an APE.

Um, my knowledge of physics is the universe began to exist, and if the universe began to exist, then so did natural law.

And it is obvious to anyone with common sense that if the universe began to exist, whatever gave it its beginning could not itself be a product of it.

Therefore, an external, supernatural cause is necessary. Now, that is a conclusion that just flows logically/naturally from the premises, and the only thing you can do at that point is try to argue that the universe is either eternal, or it owes its existence to a prior-natural cause....both of those explanations are equally absurd, and that is something that I will demonstrate in my next thread.

A being that is powerful enough to create from nothing is also powerful enough to manifest itself in all places at one time.

All powerful for one. All-powerful means infinite energy, infinite energy means infinite mass. In order to do anything, this APE would also have to have structure, like a muscle, lever or even a magnetic field.
However, name any character you think it should have. But more importantly, before we run down that fools-errand, tell me the rationale for requiring such properties.
I think you'll find that the only reason your need APE characteristics is to explain something religious, that can't even be observed.

You called this...

This is all peanuts. In other words, little to NOTHING. You are talking about stuff that needs to happen WITHIN the universe, occuring to natural law.

I am talking about a being that actually created natural law..the laws that you speak of only exist because of him. Those laws have absolutely NO control or effect on him...in fact, it is the laws that are dependent upon him, and not the other way around. The sooner you realize that, the better.

LOL actually, its funny. This whole "it is against science, physics" thing reminds me of a quote from Galactus, on the game Marvel vs Capcom.

The game is known for its personal winning/opening quotes that the characters say to one another. Galactus, who one of Marvel's most powerful villians, after he defeats one of the characters (usually one of the Avengers or X-men), his winning quote is..

"What does Earth's Mightiest heros mean to one that rules the universe??

In that same way, "What does natural law mean to one that created the universe?"

LOL.

But you need to tell what an APE explains or does that it needs to exist at all. So, what does an APE do that the same system without an APE does not? If there isn't anything, then it is unsound to assume an APE.

Well, according to the soundness/validity of the KCA, a First Cause is needed...and according to the soundness/validty of the MOA, the First Cause is possible, and conceivable, and necessary.

You have two logically sound/valid arguments that corroborates the other.

This is a good answer for anyone born BEFORE Isaac Newton. Or before understanding that matter and energy are conserved. Matter is neither created nor destroyed... Energy is neither created nor destroyed... only transformed.

A point that I will continue to pound home as needed; the first law of thermodynamics only comes in to play AFTER the universe began to exist.

You do understand the implications of that, don't you?

Imagine we reverse time we see and observed what happened...
Heavier atoms become lighter ones in Suns.
Lighter elements become hydrogen (protons, neutrons and electrons-(pnes)).
If we track the Big Bang, that hydrogen compresses towards the center of the Universe getting denser until they form a huge Neutron Star. That "Star" becomes denser until it compresses to form Bosons in a massive Black Hole.

Why stop there? Keep going back further and further, and let me know when you will get to the point where you can't go any further...I will wait.

There is no need for creation.

Then the past is eternal....which is absurd.

Especially if you imagine there is left over hydrogen, watching that entire process. Dark Matter is a sizable portion of the Universe, so this is not unreasonable.

Bottom line, no creator is needed. Matter is transformed, with no need for creation.

Sure, matter is transformed. But could it have been transforming forever and ever and ever? No, it can't.

But lets save this for another thread.

This statement is just wrong. You do not have a sufficient understanding of thermodynamics, again limiting your ability to take part in the conversation.

The statement "the universe began to exist" is a statement that can be found in any text book on contemporary cosmology. The evidence for the finitude of the universe is so overwhelming, that prominent physicists such as Lawrence Krauss has to resort to absurdity just to explain it...such as his "Universe from Nothing" spewage.

The knowledge of a finite universe, and the evidence that supports it, is just about 100 years old. You are either out of touch with contemporary cosmology, or you are just in flat out denial...either way, it is disingenuous.

Being nice, I'll ask, why you would make such a broad claim? What is your rationale for making such, what would be considered by most, a bad assumption?

Again, to ask such a question is showing your ignorance of the contemporary evidence, or you are aware of the evidence, but you are in denial of it.

So again, energy is neither created nor destroyed. So, what YOU are obviously speaking about is your definition, or WORDS describing the universe. Those are only words. The energy was there in a form YOU have not defined.

Such a notion is logically absurd. The energy to create you was here for an infinite amount of time, but you were only created a finite time ago? Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and that is part of the problem.

Naturalists want to be so scientify because they think they have it all figured out, but what they fail to do is realize the absurdities behind their interpretations, and this is dangerous. The view has to be logical, it has to make actual sense, which it doesn't.

I don't know what you mean, are you alleging again that physics stops working? Again, a very bold statement, one you can't make lightly. Provide a rationale, or withdraw it.

No, I am making an even bolder statement. I am saying that if there is no universe, there is no physics.

No, there is no need for a first cause: Matter is neither created nor destroyed, it does not need a cause. Protons, neutrons and electrons are
OBSERVABLY AND DEMONSTRABLY IMMORTAL.
No conjecture or logic required.

I really hope you show up for my KCA thread.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I have no interest in fiction and fantasy

Oh, so you don't believe in evolution? Cool!! Me either.

however, I do have some appreciation for creative mental gymnastics often used to defend or promote religious beliefs.

Along with the truth and validity of it all...

The above "argument" went off the rails at #2 -- attempting to go from "possible" to "being exists".

All possible necessary truths must be actually true. So if God's existence is even possible, then it follows that God does in fact, exist.

The train fell off a Trestle at #3 with a wild, unsupported assumption presented as though it was established fact.

Yet, you didn't make any attempt to invalidate #2..

Number one is accepted only because nearly anything is "possible" hypothetically (particularly regards religion and science fiction). All after that is mere conjecture / opinion / fantasy.

Necessary truths cannot be possibly truth, but actually false...so if God's existence is possibly true, then it is actually true.

[Artie]

Um, my knowledge of physics is the universe began to exist, and if the universe began to exist, then so did natural law.

And it is obvious to anyone with common sense that if the universe began to exist, whatever gave it its beginning could not itself be a product of it.

Therefore, an external, supernatural cause is necessary. Now, that is a conclusion that just flows logically/naturally from the premises,

No it doesn't. Not even George Lemaître, the originator of the Big Bang theory said that.

"We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations."
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture ... ecnum=8847