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]

If God is being defined as necessary, at what point does its potential to exist (possibility) translate to actually existing?

Look in the OP. Kingdom defines existence as a "great making property" which it isn't.

No, I didn't define existence as a "great making property". I specifically said "The four "omni's"that you see above, those are what we'd called "great making properties."

And existence was NOT included in the "four omni's". Stop the madness.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

Doing everything in your power to come up with some kind of scenario to negate the argument, huh? The argument must be working LOL

[Inigo Montoya]

[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?

It is relevant. You have defined the being as necessary without justification or support.

On what grounds do you justify or support this being as being defined "necessary?"

Not relevant? It's your entire linchpin and remains unsupported..

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 235 by For_The_Kingdom]

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

Because I am a shoe salesman and I own a shoe store. And one day, God came into my store because he wanted to try on some shoes. He asked to try on some of the shoes in the "Necessary" section. He said he wanted the best shoe in that section, and I got him the best shoe in that section, and he tried on the shoe.

And the shoes fitted. So he began to wear them.

[Inigo Montoya]

So you have no desire or means to support defining the "necessary" attribute you did.

Very good. Your argument is now invalid until you care enough to justify your definition

Edit: Not even invalid. Now there's just no reason to give it any attention. You have unsupported definitions, so it's just you making things up until you justify the necessity.

[Artie]

No, I didn't define existence as a "great making property". I specifically said "The four "omni's"that you see above, those are what we'd called "great making properties."

And existence was NOT included in the "four omni's". Stop the madness.

But dear Kingdom, one of your four "omni's" is "present everywhere" and you might as well say "exists everywhere". "Existent" is a synonym for "present". Are you saying that existence isn't part of the property "exists everywhere"?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 218 by Bust Nak]

Any possibilities translate to actually in a possible world. In one possible world, this one, you rolled a 6; in another you rolled a 5 and so on; in no world did you roll a 7; in every world you rolled between 1 to 6.

That much is easy enough to understand I hope. This is where the definition comes in, it is saying God is non-contingent, i.e either a necessary, or an impossibility. If it is not impossible, then it has to be a necessary, and trivally what is necessary, exist in this world. That's where step 3 of the argument does the heavy lifting. If God exists in any worlds, then he exists in all worlds.

Nicely put. What I see there is that with the die, we can point to it, examine it, and see the 6 sides numbered 1 through 6. We are able to show that there is no side marked 7, thus there is no chance of a roll of 7.
Whereas with God...we don't have a god present to examine. Instead, it's imagined to exist and imagined to have various properties. Whether or not it actually has those properties, we don't know. At least with the die, we can say for certain it has the property of 6 sides.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 223 by For_The_Kingdom]

These questions will be answered in the KCA thread. Existence is absolutely positively necessary, and I will prove just that.

You can't use other logical arguments in this argument, at least not by just giving their initials. If you're going to constantly refer to the KCA, at least name it and at least lay it out and talk about it.
In this thread, the KCA has NOT been talked about, thus we have no reason to accept this claim. Where is it, by the way? You haven't shut up about it for about a week now and so far...no thread about it.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 230 by For_The_Kingdom]

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

How do you know? For all you know, he's all powerful, thus he's able to make himself invisible, fly all over the world and deposit those presents...but he has nothing at all to do with the claims of a Jew man who got nailed to a pole 2,000 years ago.
You've granted your all powerful god the ability to resurrect the dead. Why don't you grant an all powerful Santa the ability to fly all over the world undetected in a single night?
Or is it as I called it before - you only accept MGB if it pertains to the god you believe exists, and not any other proposed entity?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 232 by For_The_Kingdom]

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?

Logical arguments don't just contain a P1 with no conclusion (or is P1 here the conclusion...so what I said before is true, you're putting the conclusion into the premise?)