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?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Is like to point out to everyone the flaws in this logic. First, being able to imagine something does not make it possible.

It does make it possible, but it doesn't make it actual. See the difference?

I can imagine an unstoppable force and an immovable object meeting. Does that make it possible?

I am not sure that is possible.

Obviously not. Being able to imagine someone doesn't make it possible. (We could also, for that matter, imagine an infinite number of MGBs, which is absurd).

The above quote is a conclusion based on a faulty premise. Non sequitur

The second problem is the jump from possible to "possible necessary" in his thought process. It's sneaky if one isn't paying attention, but nowhere has it been presented that a MGB is necessary. It's an added assumption in the middle of the process. Why is an MGB necessary? It's not. Kingdom may THINK it is, but there's no evidentiary standard that supports thinking that...

The question of "Why" is completely irrelevant to the argument.

Actually to be accurate most people admit that it cannot be stated with 100% certainty that gods and leprechauns and wizards and ghosts and souls and devils named Olaf do not exist. There's no need to change that after the false logic presentation made in the OP.

False logic? LOL...the argument remains unrefuted.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 89 by For_The_Kingdom]

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

I thought you weren't going to name the MGB in this thread?

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.

When in a debate, it doesn't matter at all how convincing the argument is for you. The problem is trying to convince your readers/listeners and your opponent(s) of the argument.

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.

Not once in this thread have you established that your concept of a MGB actually IS logically valid. You just declared it to be, with no explanation. You gave various omni- adjectives and left it at that.
People on my side of the camp hold that your concept is logically unsound. I in particular hold that no entity can be omniscient. No entity can know everything. An entity can believe it knows everything but the problem of unknown unknowns means there is always an open possibility for that entity to not know something and not even realize it. There would be no way to verify that an entity knows everything, since you'd need at least two entities that are omniscient and the problem of unknown unknowns applies to both of them.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 90 by For_The_Kingdom]

In this latest reply, Post number 90, let's look at how Kingdom refutes Kenisaw.

It does make it possible, but it doesn't make it actual. See the difference?

I am not sure that is possible.

The above quote is a conclusion based on a faulty premise. Non sequitur

The question of "Why" is completely irrelevant to the argument.

False logic? LOL...the argument remains unrefuted.

I'd like readers to pay attention to how much detail (or rather, the lack thereof) Kingdom puts into his/her replies. Especially the last one. It's a simple declaration, and nothing more, that the MOA remains unrefuted.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I don't see why you would need to mess around with "possible worlds," not with the definition of God you provided here:

1) God cannot fail to exist.
2) Therefore God exists.

Wow that was easy to prove! The argument amounts to taking your audience round the park to hide the question begging nature of the premise. You cannot define something into existence.

Dude, it takes more than just merely stating the premises...you actually have to give evidence that support the premises. The premises has to be supported...and in argument, each premises is supported and it all just flows naturally.

[Kenisaw]

I don't see why you would need to mess around with "possible worlds," not with the definition of God you provided here:

1) God cannot fail to exist.
2) Therefore God exists.

Wow that was easy to prove! The argument amounts to taking your audience round the park to hide the question begging nature of the premise. You cannot define something into existence.

Dude, it takes more than just merely stating the premises...you actually have to give evidence that support the premises. The premises has to be supported...and in argument, each premises is supported and it all just flows naturally.

You mean like showing that the possible existence of something suddenly makes it necessary? Yeah, I'd like to see that evidence too. Where is it?

[Artie]

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 those who may be interested Alvin Plantinga himself says the following about the Modal Onthological Argument:

“Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion."
http://counterapologist.blogspot.no/201 ... ument.html

[For_The_Kingdom]

I'd like to ask For_the_Kingdom a question.

Why create this thread?

Because I am a Christian Apologist...and most of you people on here are Christian skeptics/critics...and this is a debate forum.

See how all three of those elements go together to form a nice, big union?

I would be VERY surprised indeed if anyone on my side of the debate had never encountered the modal ontological argument before.
So why present it? The thread reads like it came from William Lane Craig verbatim. There's nothing in the OP that I can see is unique, or looks to have been Kingdom's spin on it.

Actually, this version of the argument comes not from William Lane Craig, but from Christian philosopher Alvin Plantiga. And yes, Dr. Craig does use this version, mostly in his written work.

You have to be a fan of WLC's written work to know that he even uses this argument, because in his debates (what he is most famous for), he almost never uses the MOA. He focuses mainly on the Kalam, Moral, and Resurrection arguments.

So I am at a lost at why you think I "jacked" WLC's argument, when it is not even his argument and he never really uses it in the first place.

Now, if this thread was one regarding the Kalam Cosmological Argument, then I can somewhat understand where you are coming from...but since it isn't, I think you are reaching a tad bit here.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 96 by For_The_Kingdom]

So I am at a lost at why you think I "jacked" WLC's argument, when it is not even his argument and he never really uses it in the first place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0poy7jcbm8
...you were saying?

You have to be a fan of WLC's written work to know that he even uses this argument, because in his debates (what he is most famous for), he almost never uses the MOA.

One doesn't have to be a fan of someone in order to know what it is they are famous for.
I've watched WLC a fair bit, not just in debates, so that is where my knowledge of him using the MOA comes from.

Because I am a Christian Apologist...and most of you people on here are Christian skeptics/critics...and this is a debate forum.

See how all three of those elements go together to form a nice, big union?

Perhaps I should have highlighted the word 'this' in the question I asked there. I was asking why create a thread about the MOA, using a version that basically reads verbatim from someone else, without putting anything from yourself into it, almost as if you're expecting us regulars in C&A not to have encountered the MOA before.
Think of it as like being a creationist who says to us "But evolution is just a theory!"

[Kenisaw]

Is like to point out to everyone the flaws in this logic. First, being able to imagine something does not make it possible.

It does make it possible, but it doesn't make it actual. See the difference?

I can imagine an unstoppable force and an immovable object meeting. Does that make it possible?

I am not sure that is possible.

Which is why those two sentences of mine you quote separately were written together. Just because it can be imagined does not mean it is possible. Just because you can imagine a MGB does not make it possible. You just agreed with me.

Obviously not. Being able to imagine someone doesn't make it possible. (We could also, for that matter, imagine an infinite number of MGBs, which is absurd).

The above quote is a conclusion based on a faulty premise. Non sequitur

Why is it absurd? How is the premise faulty? Details my boy, details...

The second problem is the jump from possible to "possible necessary" in his thought process. It's sneaky if one isn't paying attention, but nowhere has it been presented that a MGB is necessary. It's an added assumption in the middle of the process. Why is an MGB necessary? It's not. Kingdom may THINK it is, but there's no evidentiary standard that supports thinking that...

The question of "Why" is completely irrelevant to the argument.

Actually the question of why is relevant, since philosophy is all about asking "why". But that wasn't even the point. The point was that "necessary" isn't part of your premise. You've changed the premise in the middle of the argument. And you got caught doing it too.

Actually to be accurate most people admit that it cannot be stated with 100% certainty that gods and leprechauns and wizards and ghosts and souls and devils named Olaf do not exist. There's no need to change that after the false logic presentation made in the OP.

False logic? LOL...the argument remains unrefuted.

You haven't addressed any of my points yet. One of them you didn't even understand the point made. I'd say it is false logic to claim the argument remains unrefuted. (To continue that using your methodology, we can now say that your claim is necessarily refuted)...

[Willum]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

Well Mr. FtK, et&al, I hope the triple defeat of the MOA by physics, philosophy and logic has at least changed your opinion about it.

Consider physical reality defeats the premise, of a hypothetical creator.
Philosophy defeated it, and
The fact that the atheists' MOA completely neutralized it, means that there is no professional or academic reason to pursue it any longer.

Now I know that the great thinker Thomas Aquinas twisted the "nothing comes from nothing," argument from what Aristotle meant by it: Nothing comes of nothing, is literal. Something must come from something. Something cannot come from nothing, and there is no need for this to happen.

and great deceiver/fool William Lane Craig claimed the universe had a beginning.
But it didn't have a beginning. It was only transformed from one state of matter, to another. Little different from what is going on inside our Sun right now.

Now this doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but it does demonstrate that this is a stupid reason to believe in one.

Incidentally, this discussion is occurring on Wiki, with apologists sabotaging the very efforts to defeat "the cosmological argument," despite them having been established by philosophers and physicists since 1972.

Rather a pathetic showing if you ask me: It is one thing for a "screen-name" to defend the MOA, it is absolutely pathetic for Judeo-Christians to sabotage wiki in the name of God.