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?

[Artie]

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.

But what if we subtract those properties until we get a "Minimally Great Being"?

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.

Being present is the same as existing. Existence isn't a property.

[For_The_Kingdom]

So, true, I think that God can possibly exist, and Santa, the FSM, and my good friend and talented wizard, Harry Potter.

How many times have I addressed the "it could be the FSM" stuff?

Once you admit that Santa might exist... well, you see the problem. Santa is the maximally greatest Xmas elf that can be imagined. So, he exists too.

We don't believe in the reality of an actual Santa Claus, not only because there isn't any evidence for him, but because of the overwhelming evidence AGAINST him.

There isn't a guy flying around on reindeer on Christmas day giving gifts to children.

Please, stop the madness.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Incorrect, that is exactly what the argument is. All the extra steps about possible worlds are there to disguise that fact. "God is defined as a necessary being, here is some modal logic... therefore, God must exist." You cannot define God into existence.

Um, no it isn't. I could replace "MGB" in the argument and put your name in the argument, thereby defining you as a necessary being. But that don't mean a dang thing because the argument wouldn't even get past the first premise, because the first premise would be demonstrably false and we can just throw the baby out with the bath water at that point.

The fact that you think we are "defining" God into existence goes to show that you still don't have a grasp on the argument, and if you are basing your entire post on such a misunderstanding, then there is no point in even responding to the rest of it, but I will anyway.

I don't know why you'd think that. It is quite obvious that the whole thing hinges entirely on God being a necessary being, without it the argument isn't even valid.

No, the argument hinges on it being POSSIBLE that a MGB exists. Do you not see the difference?

If you understood why your example of defining blastcat as necessary fails, you ought to understand why the modal ontological argument fails.

No, putting blastcat in the argument fails because it isn't possible for blastcat to be a MGB. Again, do you not see the difference?

And i'll keep saying it until you understand, you cannot define God as a necessary being without support, and if you could support God as a necessary being then you can just jump to the conclusion that God exists without using modal logic. I wasn't trying to represent let alone misrepresent the modal argument. I was offering a quick alternative.

Again, the meat and potatoes of the argument is based on the fact that it is POSSIBLE for God to exist. Point blank, period. No one is defining God into existence...I gave the definition for a MGB...and the definition of the being is independent of whether it is possible for the being to exist.

I know that, that's why I said I was way ahead of you. To support the definition of God used in the modal ontological argument, you need to prove that God is necessary. And if you could prove God necessary, then you may as well use that as a premise and conclude God exists straight away like my argument.

The good thing about the argument is, you don't need to prove that God is necessary, all you have to do is support P1, that it is possible for God to exist. Once you do that, you are to the promised land.

That the PREMISES aren't even the same should have been all the clue you need to work out I wasn't trying to reproduce the modal ontological argument. Do you really think I would mess up the premuses like that? Come on, give me more credit than that. If anyone is guilty of misrepresentation, it would be you.

To be honest, the only thing you've done is misunderstand the argument. Your objections are unfounded and doesn't reflect what is actually being argued.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Yes, one does exclude the other.
You are very perceptive.

If there is a possible world where MGB does not exist, then MGB doesn't exist in any possible world.

Exactly, and vice versa.

Both can possibly be true.

SMH

Yes, that was exactly my point.
In situation B, no MGB can exist.

Based on what?

Ahhh ok, I stand corrected.
So, the possible MGB turns into a NECESSARY MGB right before our very eyes.

Yes, the mere possibility of a MGB existing would mean that a MGB exist in the actual world...P1-P6.

If necessary means that it must exist, then p1 begs the question. P1 seems to make it necessary that MGB exists, doesn't it?

Not at all. P1, on its own merit, is a proposition. The proposition is either true or false...even if you excluded the entire rest of the argument and you are just left with P1, it is either true or false, right?

Well, if it is true, then the rest just flows like the Nile, huh?

So, it's not that an MGB POSSIBLY exists, but that MGB exists NECESSARILY.

That looks like the same thing, does it not?

You might as well go out and say that God exists in P1 and be done with it.

No, first you define "God", because not all "gods" are created equal. Once you define God, then you say "It is possible for such a being to exist"...and after that, you are essentially drawing the P6 conclusion..but you won't get to P6 that easily...not without a million and one objections coming from the skeptic.

Trust me, I know ')

OR.... I could change the argument against MGB's existence by saying that :

P1 ( revised ) There is a possible world where MGB isn't a necessary being, but just another run of the mill ordinary contingent being.

Then either P4 or P5 wouldn't be true.

[Inigo Montoya]

We don't believe in the reality of an actual Santa Claus, not only because there isn't any evidence for him, but because of the overwhelming evidence AGAINST him.

I can't be the only one that read that and choked on the irony..

[For_The_Kingdom]

That depends on how "God" is being defined. A necessary being? *Rise hand* Me, I can honestly say that piror to this thread, my contention was that "God cannot possibly exist."

Sure, you can systematically deny whatever you choose...but when it comes to questions like "what reasons do you have to conclude that God cannot possibly exist"..when it comes to questions like that, the atheists' bag is empty.

The arguments for atheism is lacking, I am afraid...that being said, I don't think you have any good reasons for such a contention, other than the fact that you just don't like the idea of a "God", and will go through every lengths to deny him at all costs.

A generic god? Sure, I have no problem accepting the possibly for such beings. And that's the trick isn't it? Slipping a necessary being past when someone isn't paying enough attention, thinking it a mere contingent god. It's a "gotcha!" with zero chance of actually converting anyone.

LOL. Okey dokey.

I will take that as conceding that the modal ontological argument hinges on tricking your audience into agreeing to something that they would not agree to if they knew what it fully entails. Bravo, you might have tricked some atheists, but all you've achieved is that they will now be watching out the next time someone tries to pull the same thing on them.

Bruh, this isn't some magic trick LOL. This is just a good, ole fashioned syllogism. Can you dig it?

You got that much right, I don't expect anything that could under-mind that fact. But that wasn't what I asked you now, was it? What you haven't done, is provide justification for defining God as a necessary being

I just don't see how that is relevant to the argument. But nevertheless, I can answer that question, just not with this argument. Wait for the KCA thread.

No way out, eh? Spoken like a guy out to trap people with gotchas.

I hate to break the news to you, Nak, but God definitely exists. The reason why the argument works is because it reflects truth. It has truth value. The truth cannot be rebutted. If you stop fighting it and simply embrace the truth, you will be a lot better off, trust me.

Having said all that, credit where it is due, you did make it abundant clear that the God in P1 is defined as a necessary being. So I cannot say you have mislead anyone.

No doubt. The definition of "God/MGB" should act as a preface to the argument. I've seen some versions of the MOA where the definition of God is actually the first premise, which I thought was....uncool lol

[For_The_Kingdom]

Is this an admission to the 'gotcha' accusation? That you got several people to say "It's possible for God to exist", only to explain AFTERWARD what exactly you meant by 'possible'? Because if so, then the adjustments are justified, since those people thought you meant one thing, but apparently you didn't

I used the word "possible" in the same way every single time, sir.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 235 by For_The_Kingdom]

For the 3rd time, what is your justification for defining this being as necessary?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Has it occured to you that a) some of us are familar with modal logic and understood what a "necessary being" implies without it having it explained in an argument?

Well, I explained it in the argument to remove all doubt.

Or b) those of us aren't so familar with modal logic, might still have and understood that the kind of gods that we accept might exist, are the contingent kind?

Oh, then the Judeo-Christian God wasn't included in those discussions, huh?

Why assume we had to adjust?

It was as obvious as the nose on Pinocchio's face after he lied to the grand jury.

Even had we been unable to give you reasons why P1 is false, it is up to you to support it. What justification have you given for defining God as necessary? That Christians believe it. Do you think that is sufficient?

No, that isn't sufficient.

Those can't both be true, if and only if God is a necessary being, a claim you have not supported.

You haven't been following the thread, have you?

More importantly, if someone was saying God possibly exist, and also possibly not exist, then that should have told you that they don't actually accept the definition of God as a necessary being. They aren't really "adjusting" if they never accepted your definition in the first place, at least not in my book.

Then they should of said "I don't accept your definition in the first place".

For the record, I stated God, when defined as necessary, cannot possibly exist on multiple occasion, long before you even joined this forum. As did many others.

Which is easy to say, but difficult to prove or give reasons why. And if you think otherwise, prove me wrong.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 223 by For_The_Kingdom]

That's all fine and well, but you defined it as necessary in THIS argument, and I've asked on what grounds is that justified?

No matter what answer I give, it is irrelevant to the truth value of P1. So are you asking out of mere curiosity, or are you asking to prove a point?