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 126 by For_The_Kingdom]

Kenisaw is right:

There are two physical ways you don't need a creator.
Two logical arguments and two philosophical arguments, all defeating your MOA.

How many can you ignore?

The other physical argument, since, despite wildly protesting you answer inquiries, other than fundamental particles do not need creation, is conservation of mass and conservation of charge.

Interestingly, though seemingly impractically, is that the strength of a gravitational field is equal and opposite to it's mass.

Add them together: 0.
There aren't any free charges in the Universe, so if you add all the + charges to all the - charges, again you get 0.

So, I am not sure just how many proofs you need to release your grip on what should be increasingly apparent to you, a silly argument, but you should be considering it...

[Artie]

Oh, so I can tell all of the creditors that keeps calling me and asking for money...I will tell them that I will take $0.00 amount of dollars, break it into pieces, and pay them all off??

Foolish, Kenisaw...foolish.

Kenisaw was trying to explain to you that the total energy of the universe is zero.

"Since it takes positive energy to separate the two pieces of matter, gravity must be using negative energy to pull them together. Thus, "the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."
http://www.livescience.com/33129-total- ... -zero.html

[Willum]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

Oh, so I can tell all of the creditors that keeps calling me and asking for money...I will tell them that I will take $0.00 amount of dollars, break it into pieces, and pay them all off??

Foolish, Kenisaw...foolish.

Since you make a financial analogy, you should make a correct one:

The creation of money is based on assets. You create money based on, gold, commodities, etc..

The government loans that money (a debt or negative value), based on that positive asset, Gold or automobile production, etc., add them together, you get, 0.

Interestingly enough, your mis-understanding analogous to money, is the same as your mis-understanding about physics...

[For_The_Kingdom]

Not a valid comparison, because 2+2 = 7 is 100% verifiable or falsifiable.

The point was, if it was possible for 2+2 to equal 7, then 2+2 would actually equal 7...I was trying to drive home the point that a possibly necessarily true proposition CANNOT be possibly necessarily true, but actually false...in the same sense that it cannot be possibly necessarily true for 2+2 to equal 7, but actually false that 2+2 does NOT equal 7.

Do you understand that, or not? Because you flew off of the handle on somthing that had nothing to do with the point that I was making.

AN MGB is merely possible, but does not have to be true or false.

Any proposition has to be either true or false. That is Philosophy 101.

An MGB is also a claim devoid of evidence that cannot be shown to be a requirement for anything. It is not necessary in other words. A possibility does not equate necessary...

It does, with necessary propositions.

Nope. Let's ignore your false logic switch from possible to necessary for a moment, as well as the other holes in the argument, and focus in on something different. If your god creature exists, that still doesn't prove that it created anything.

Ok, since we are ignoring things, I will ignore the rest of your post.

[Artie]

Dr. Craig and Alvin Plantiga are the only ones that I know of that advocate the argument...not to say that there aren't others.

Why would others advocate the argument when even Plantinga hmself says that the argument proves nothing?

"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

Read the whole article and you will better understand what's wrong with the argument.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

No, thats not what I am saying nor do I know how you could have ever deduced such a point from what I said.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[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.

I am trying not to conflate the KCA and the MOA together. I understand that somehow, someway, you've managed to bring science into an argument that completely lacks any materialistic element to it. How you managed to do that, I don't know

However, I'd like to keep things in their proper perspective, and once this thread has run its course, I will be more than happy to engage you on that topic there.

[Kenisaw]

On top of that fact, you've just made it worse for yourself. Nothing can be "omnipotent, ominscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent" all at the same time. It's an illogical claim.

Please explain what is illogical about a being that posseesses the four omni's.

Please see post 110.

The universe did begin to exist, in its current format. Where that start came from is the big question. But it is wrong to say that the universe could not be a product of itself, when it has been proven to be "nothing" broken up into pieces. The universe is not a change from nothing, it IS nothing, just in a different configuration. I've explained this to you before, please refer to those threads for a refresher on the topic.

Oh, so I can tell all of the creditors that keeps calling me and asking for money...I will tell them that I will take $0.00 amount of dollars, break it into pieces, and pay them all off??

Foolish, Kenisaw...foolish

No, because $0.00 broken up still equals $0.00. Send them $5 and a -$5. You will have sent them $0. It's not that hard a concept. In our universe everything offsets. The net spin is zero. The net charge is zero. The net momentum is zero. Add up all the positive energy (light, mass, kinetic, heat, etc) and subtract out the negative (gravity) and you zero. The universe is nothing, broken up into a lot of pieces. Don't take my word for it, look it up...

Not only is it not necessary, it's illogical. If you have the time I'd love to read your replies to the responses that people took the time you give you in this thread that pointed out some logical flaws in your OP.

Huh?

Exactly...

[Kenisaw]

Nope. Let's ignore your false logic switch from possible to necessary for a moment, as well as the other holes in the argument, and focus in on something different. If your god creature exists, that still doesn't prove that it created anything.

Ok, since we are ignoring things, I will ignore the rest of your post.

I figured you wouldn't have an answer for that...

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

I have to give you props for acknowledging that point.

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.'

Right, and only one God is needed. There isn't anything that multiple MGB's can do that one MGB can't do...so there is no need to go beyond necessity (no pun intended).

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

How?