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]

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.

I did...if he is following the thread, he would see that I've addressed what he said numerous times.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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...

I've already stated why it is at least possible for God to exist, though. Once it is shown that God's existence is possible, then it is also shown the existence of God to be actually true. Two birds with one stone, basically.

[Furrowed Brow]

[Replying to post 149 by For_The_Kingdom]

The nub of the initial problem appears to be the following point.

Right, that is exactly the point!! You are using "possible" in the sense of a possible contingent truth,….

Yes, that’s about it. We do not accept premise 1 is true and are ready to substitute the term “contingent’ for “possible�, or the phrase “it is not possible�.

Of course, most of you will agree that it is possible for a MGB to exist.

Clearly the length of this thread is evidence of a dispute, and, most of us do not agree this point. If you had stated that most of us would accept that it is possibly the case or it is possible it is not the case that a MGB exists there would be no bone of contention here. But then the MOA would not work to the ends it is intended to.

If anything, that is how the word "possible" is being equivocated, but not by me, but by some of you.

Yes..ok. to a point…but you are insisting on a formal definition of the word possible. Which is fine…but if you are going to tie down terms you have to also allow the opponents of the MOA clarify their opposition. This has been done in spades. We mean an MGB is moot, it is uncertain, it is doubtful, it is possibly not the case, or it is not possible. As to the stance any given commentator takes you will have to take it up with each individual. But to keep insisting an MGB is possible does not get us over the doubts and proves nothing.

.. and all possible necessary truths must be...true.

Only in modal system S5 and similar systems. There are hundreds of modal logics. The point you claim as true is a theorem of S5. It is not a theorem of many more logics. It is not a theorem of system S4 for example. You seem to be mistaking a truth in one system for a general truth of modal logic.

..As soon as you say "it is possible" when it comes to necessary truths, you are subsequently affirming that the proposition is actually true.

In S5, not in S4.

No way around it.

There are hundreds of modal logics that each define necessity slightly differently, and many of these gives us a way around it.

To say that it is "contingently possible that a maximally great being exists" is nonsensical.

Actually the formulation I gave was…

• it is contingent that a maximally great being exists

Grammatically that makes sense, but yes you are right something cannot both be contingent and a necessity, which means if a maximally great being is contingent then it is not a necessity. It is easy to show your proof of the necessity of an MGB relies on point 3 which is only true in S5. But the implication is not safe in all modal logics thus it is not safe to say an MGB necessarily exists unless you restrict the discourse to within the limits of the definitions of S5. But outside of S5 the revised version of Premise 1 makes sense so long as it is understood an MGB is not a necessity.

If you don't know, just say "I don't know"...don't go saying "it is possible" or "it isn't possible" and opening yourself to certain implications that you may not necessarily like.

Erm…I am not saying it is possible, and I am guilty of the conceit of assuming I am aware of the implications here.

If I don’t know I can only formally admit this within epistemic logic. I don’t know is not an alethic modality. Within the limits of alethic logic I’d say it is contingent (possibly the case and possible not the case) or it is not possible. By standard modal definitions that is equivalent to saying it is not necessary. More succinctly: the existence of an MGB is not necessary. And I can prove that in the limited sense your premise 3 is not true for all modal logics. Thus the argument is not a general truth of modal logic. If it is not generally true then the existence of an MGB may not be necessary, and if it may not be necessary it is not necessary.

Either a MGB's existence is possible, or it isn't possible. Plain and simple. If it is possible, then such a being exists.

This is tautological and thus true of anything not just an MGB. But you have not proved an MGB is a necessity because point 3 in the argument relies on modal system S5, and as pointed out there are many alternatives to S5 in which 3 is not true.

And as long as it is possible, it is true (when it comes to necessary propositions).

You keep repeating the same mistake. This is true for modal logic S5 and similar systems that have this as a theorem. Not all modal logics have this theorem. Check out S4. It is not true in S4.

What may be conceived and what may be real are two different things.

Can you conceive of a squared circle? No, because such a thing defies logic..it is a categorical mistake...and such a thing cannot exist in reality.

A square circle is contradiction in terms and false a priori. Maybe there are are other limits on what is possible besides definitions. Synthetic truths for example like a universal speed limit on faster than light travel. Or maybe an MGB is like a genie in a bottle. Something that fits happily into a narrative but is never real. Maybe things like genies are invoked within narrative for the very reason they defy reality. The comparison is apt. The notion of omnipotence is predicated on defying reality. And so it seems is time travel. Having a narrative in which things like time travel, genies, and gods and omnipotence makes sense….is not ground to think these are possible, unless of course we are not being realists about possible worlds and admit a possible world means anything we can imagine even those that break all the rules. And the rules may not be limited to simple contradiction in terms like the example of a square circle. You don’t know the answer to this..and neither do I…and so immedialtely Point 1 of the MOA should start with the word IF and the argument made a conditional (if it is possible …..then).

In the above example of the squared circle...can you think of a possible world at which a squared circle could exist? No, because the existence of a squared circle is necessarily false. But if you COULD think of a squared circle, then there is a possible world at which a squared circle could exist.

The same thing with a MGB.

And maybe an MGB is like a 60ft genie that fits into a teeny weeny bottle. On some level the idea captures the imagination and is fun to imagine. But in reality there is never a genie and we should not conflate stories we tell ourselves with real/true possibilities.

But if it is CONCEIVABLE, then there is a possible world at which there is a being that possess those attributes.

Flying carpets, genies likely all belong to impossible worlds. Worlds we can describe in story but ones which break the laws of energy, or space, or mass etcetera. I regularly watch Doctor Who. It does not mean there is a Doctor in some possible world. When I watch the Doctor I gloss over the paradoxes and plot holes.

I think you may be glossing over the paradoxes of an MGB. Can a maximally greatest being surprise themselves? Many non-omniscient beings often do something that surprises them. Thus they can do something an omniscient being can’t; and thus an omniscient being can’t also be omnipotent as they can’t feel surprise or start a series of events with uncertain outcomes; or if they can they are not omniscient. That looks like a paradox due to holding two incompatible ideas at once. But like Doctor Who we may gloss over the paradoxes so not to spoil a good yarn.

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?

We can imagine it, but that does not make it possible even for an MGB. There are many concepts like time travel or omnipotence or faster than light travel that may just not be possible….even for an MGB. As I said previously, what counts maximal may in reality look far more mundane than any god. Maybe a being that achieves maximal attributes can never run faster than around 80 mph in any possible world. Impressive. But not sufficient to launch a religion.

You are saying "it may be possible, it may be impossible"....fine....but the question is "is it possible", and the answer to that question is "yes, it is possible".

No. It is highly doubtful (epistemic logic). It may not be possible or it may be possible (alethic logic and a tautology).

Only a necessary being can have omniscience as an attribute

Why?

I can imagine a being that knows everything, goes mad as a result, and kills them self. I suspect an omniscient being that goes mad is just a story I’ve told myself. But I can still imagine an omniscience being. Just one that is mortal. I can also imagine omniscience is just not possible because of the paradox mentioned. In which case no being may be omniscient and omnipotent.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

In the OP you said and I quote:

"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)."

Why can't such a being fail to exist?

I will argue that such a being cannot fail to exist, and I will make this argument based on what we do know. But that is more geared towards the KCA.

But to the question; I don't know. To me, that is like asking "Why does existence...exist"?

There is no way to answer that question besides simply to say "God exists due to the necessity of his own nature".

It is necessary for God to exist.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, I'm totally cherry picking here, but I had to respond to this.

You are suggesting an eternal past is absurd, yet an eternal God is not?

I think anything eternal fries my brain when I think about it too hard, but if you are going to grant one thing is absurd to being eternal, I think you are destroying your own argument for something else being eternal.

There is a difference in existing eternally, and existing eternally in time. One is absurd, and the other one isn't.

Can you guess which one is, and which one isn't?

Why is one absurd?

KCA

[For_The_Kingdom]

The quote from Lemaître is irrelevant

You said in post 69 and I quote: "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, an external, supernatural cause is not necessary and if you can manage to say "that is a conclusion that just flows logically/naturally from the premises" one must wonder what's wrong with your premises and conclusion.

KCA

[Artie]

I've already stated why it is at least possible for God to exist, though. Once it is shown that God's existence is possible, then it is also shown the existence of God to be actually true. Two birds with one stone, basically.

And how do you get from possible to actually true?

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

Zero means nothing. If you mean "zero" in any other sense than "nothing", then you are equivocating the word "nothing"..or you are failing to state in what sense are you using the word.

"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

KCA

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

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..

Zero is zero.

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.

^ The above quote is the price of atheism right there. If you want to be an atheist, it will cost you your common sense and sanity.

[Artie]

KCA

Cosmological Kalamity. http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_ ... amity.html