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 falseor 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 isnt 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, its possible.

That being said; lets 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, Id 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 Gods 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, Gods 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, youve 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 dont think that you can, can you?

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

Do you think that such a miniscule objection negates the MOA? Dude, can a MGB change the future? If the answer is no, then it must not be POSSIBLE for the future to be changed, because if it were possible, then a MGB would be able to do it!!!

So, apparently, the changing of the future is thereby impossible...and no one is claiming that even with an attribute such a omnipotence, that a MGB can do something that is logically absurd.

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.

Nonsense. So, if me and the MGB are in a free throw shooting contest, the MGB has the power to make every single free throw, correct? Because after all, he is maximally great?

But if the MGB chooses to miss one, despite having the POWER to NOT miss ANY, does that make the being any less maximally great? No, it doesn't.

As long as the miss was a choice, not a short-coming or mishap in his ability.

But it is as clear as the sun in the sky that Google is you all's best friend. Keep looking, keep searching for a way out...because we all know, "anything but the "G" word" right?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 160 by For_The_Kingdom]

So, apparently, the changing of the future is thereby impossible...and no one is claiming that even with an attribute such a omnipotence, that a MGB can do something that is logically absurd.

Earlier you said

Exactly, we can't imagine contingent human beings being able to time travel, but we CAN imagine a MGB being able to time travel, can't we?

So earlier, you said that an MGB can time travel. It would be one of the abilities you would give to an MGB.
But now it can't? Now it can't change the future?
Besides, changing the future is NOT logically absurd. There are many modes of thought devoted to that subject. Such as the multiverse hypothesis (why does the word multiverse ring a bell? Why is it I have this strange feeling someone I know has been talking about it all week?)

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 153 by For_The_Kingdom]

Hi, For_The_Kingdom

Accepting P1 can only be conditional

You are correct, I didn't give any support to any of the premises. Why? Because I thought that most of you would agree with P1, so I felt that there was no need to support it.

And I was correct, most of you do agree with P1 and after P1 is established, then the rest of the argument flows just as naturally/logically as one would expect a logically valid and sound argument to flow.

But agreeing that P1 is true doesn't DO much if we can ALSO agree that the OPPOSITE of P1 is true.

There is a possible world where MGB exists
There is a possible world where MGB doesn't exist.

I could agree with both.

The conclusions aren't exactly the same.

If you would change P1 to:

There is a possible world where MBG exists but there is NO possible world where MGB doesn't exist.

I could not agree with that P1 at all.

So, I can agree with your original P1 on condition that we run the argument with the Negative of P1. The argument only gets us to GOD exists on CONDITION that we don't use the negative case for MGB existing in some possible world.

So, if we completely IGNORE that MGB might NOT exist in some possible word, then we are way more likely to conclude that it MUST exist in some possible world.

[Willum]

I have done my research and have concluded you are absolutely correct For the Kingdom.

The Maximally Great Being exists.
His name is Vladimir Putin.
He exists in all possibles worlds, and all possible worlds are this one.

QED.

Based on:

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.

[Artie]

The Maximally Great Being exists.
His name is Vladimir Putin.
He exists in all possibles worlds, and all possible worlds are this one.

Well, according to the OP the MGB is and I quote: "omnipresent (present everywhere at any given time)" so everything that exists in every possible world must be Vladimir Putin. You and me too.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 164 by Artie]

Well, MOA pundits have been selectively ignoring the bits of their argument, why can't I?

I am just saying the MGB, isn't all that M. More of a mGB.

Prove otherwise. Th logic still works.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 164 by Artie]

Well, MOA pundits have been selectively ignoring the bits of their argument, why can't I?

I am just saying the MGB, isn't all that M. More of a mGB.

Prove otherwise. Th logic still works.

Is there a Minimally Great Being? I'm just having fun with the illogic of some of the statements in the OP.

[Willum]

[Replying to Artie]

I was going for 'marginally.'

Haven't you been paying attention?

If you can imagine it, it must be true!

Putin is the Maximally Great Being. The greatest being that can exist. He exists on all possible world, ha the most power, etc., etc..

Again, prove otherwise.

[Artie]

Putin is the Maximally Great Being. The greatest being that can exist. He exists on all possible world, ha the most power, etc., etc..

Again, prove otherwise.

He is also omnipresent, so not only does he exist everywhere he must be everything otherwise there would be some places he wouldn't be present and where something else would be present instead.

[Blastcat]

Putin is the Maximally Great Being. The greatest being that can exist. He exists on all possible world, ha the most power, etc., etc..

Again, prove otherwise.

He is also omnipresent, so not only does he exist everywhere he must be everything otherwise there would be some places he wouldn't be present and where something else would be present instead.

There's a minimally impossible world where I'm impossibly maximal Putin so, I'm puttin the Putin in this world marginally.

( gin doesn't help theology )