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?

[Kenisaw]

Kingdom seems to think that no one has refuted his argument because they haven't refuted point #1. (His argument has been refuted, in several ways, but he fails to affirm this for some unknown reason).

So, let's go about refuting the original premise then, which is:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

A maximally great being (MGB) would be a being that is all knowing, all powerful, etc. If they weren't, they wouldn't be maximally great. So this all knowing being knows everything that has happened, is currently happening, and will happen. It has to, otherwise it could not be all-knowing. This means that it even knows everything it will ever do. But if it knows everything it will ever do, than it cannot change the future. If it was going to change the future it should already know it was going to to that, because it knows everything. So if it can't change the future it can't possibly be all powerful then. If it can't be all knowing and all powerful at the same time it can't be a MGB.

So an MGB must not exist. Your premise is rejected.

We can also attack it from a different angle. If an MGB exists, then that means that everything is maximally great, because a MGB cannot have existence that is not a maximally great existence. But it is claimed that the MGB created the universe, the Earth, and us. But this means that the MGB changed the parameters of its existence. You can't improve on maximally great, so any change must therefore reduce the greatness to something below maximally great. So an MGB cannot currently exist.

So an MGB must not exist. Your premise is rejected.

[Bust Nak]

Kingdom seems to think that no one has refuted his argument because they haven't refuted point #1.

We don't even need to refute the premise, he hasn't provide support for it. He just assumes most of us will just go along with it. Sure we would accept that it's possible for a creator god to exist, i.e. a contingent being, a mere prerequisite of the things inside one particular possible world. It's quite a different matter getting us to accept it is possible for a logically necessary god to exist.

At least it ought to be a different matter, it's a shame some didn't spot the "bait and switch," and I put "bait and switch" in quote because I am not sure it could even be called that. After all, the OP did explicitly warned the readers that "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."

[For_The_Kingdom]

I can imagine there is no god so there is no god.

The god that you are imagining is a contingent one. If you can imagine a necessary god not existing, then it was never necessary in the first place.

[For_The_Kingdom]

This is exactly true. The argument of the OP necessarily must be logically flawed. I think some of the posters have already addressed why it is logically flawed.

However, you are right, all you need to do is replace "Maximally Great Being" with a blank, and anything you fill into that blank must then exist.


Here's the general argument, and if valid, then it must be valid for ANYTHING we place in the blank:


1. It is possible that a _____________ exists.

2. If it is possible that a _____________ exists, then a _____________ exists in some possible world.

3. If a _____________ exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a _____________ exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (our world).

5. If a _____________ exists in the actual world, then a _____________ exists.

6. Therefore, a _____________ exists.

This is obviously a flawed logical reasoning, becasue then anything we fill into the blank must necessarily exist IN OUR WORLD!

Pink Flying Magical Unicorns must necessarily exist IN OUR WORLD if this argument is to be logically valid because we can write this into the blanks.

This is clearly a logical "word salad" that has absolutely no validity in any real system of formal logic. For it if had validity then ANYTHING GOES!

Still misunderstanding the argument, are we? If the argument was that easy to refute, we (apologists) wouldn't use it.

[Kenisaw]

This is exactly true. The argument of the OP necessarily must be logically flawed. I think some of the posters have already addressed why it is logically flawed.

However, you are right, all you need to do is replace "Maximally Great Being" with a blank, and anything you fill into that blank must then exist.


Here's the general argument, and if valid, then it must be valid for ANYTHING we place in the blank:


1. It is possible that a _____________ exists.

2. If it is possible that a _____________ exists, then a _____________ exists in some possible world.

3. If a _____________ exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a _____________ exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (our world).

5. If a _____________ exists in the actual world, then a _____________ exists.

6. Therefore, a _____________ exists.

This is obviously a flawed logical reasoning, becasue then anything we fill into the blank must necessarily exist IN OUR WORLD!

Pink Flying Magical Unicorns must necessarily exist IN OUR WORLD if this argument is to be logically valid because we can write this into the blanks.

This is clearly a logical "word salad" that has absolutely no validity in any real system of formal logic. For it if had validity then ANYTHING GOES!

Still misunderstanding the argument, are we? If the argument was that easy to refute, we (apologists) wouldn't use it.

So explain it to him. Claiming he misunderstands it and then doing nothing to further his understanding falls on you, not him. You are the one that started the thread and wrote it up as you did. If you think someone is not grasping the point, explain it better.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

Um, no we don't just define God into existence. I can define you as a necessary being, but does it follow that you are actually one? No...the mere definition has absolutely nothing to do with the truth value of whether the definition is actually true.

[For_The_Kingdom]

All well and fine if you can show that a MGB is necessary.

A first cause is necessary, and that will be proven in my KCA thread. The intent & purpose of this argument is to demonstrate that the possibility of a MGB existing is...possible...and since all possible necessary truths must actually be true...then therefore, God exists.

[Kenisaw]

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

Um, no we don't just define God into existence. I can define you as a necessary being, but does it follow that you are actually one? No...the mere definition has absolutely nothing to do with the truth value of whether the definition is actually true.

So what you are saying is that merely claiming necessity isn't an argument that it is, in fact, necessary. So there's no reason to accept the claim of necessary as true until it is shown that it is true. Interesting...

So that probably means you should get around to showing us that your MGB is, in fact, necessary, just like you've been asked....eh?

[Kenisaw]

All well and fine if you can show that a MGB is necessary.

A first cause is necessary, and that will be proven in my KCA thread. The intent & purpose of this argument is to demonstrate that the possibility of a MGB existing is...possible...and since all possible necessary truths must actually be true...then therefore, God exists.

Keep reading in the thread, and you will get to the part where you find out it isn't actually possible...

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

The proposition "God necessarily exists" is either true or false. It has nothing to do with properties. God either exists, or he doesn't exist...plain and simple.

Of course "it would have to exist in the first place"....the question is, is it POSSIBLE for it to exist in the first place...again, that is a proposition that is either true or false, plain and simple...if it is true, then it is true regardless of whether existence is a "property" or not.

Completely irrelevant, in fact, it is a border line red herring.