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]

Kingdom:

I can imagine in my mind a MGB with all the properties you describe. I can also imagine in my mind an enormous fire-breathing dragon. Can't you just use your own words and explain why the MGB would have to exist in the real world but not the dragon...

[Artie]

[Replying to Artie]

Salient point, Artie. What people tend to either forget or not realize in the first place is that proving something true in a logical argument does not actually make it true in reality. You can get a true statement in logic/philosophy that is completely false in the real world. Even if the Modal argument was shown to be true, it still doesn't mean there actually is such a creature as an MGB...

The OP can be reduced too:

1. "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)."

Note that Kingdom doesn't give any rational reason why such a being is necessary he just pronounces that such a being cannot fail to exist.

2. "1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists"

3. "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."

And all we need to do is say "hang on a minute, you haven't given us any logical reason why a MGB is necessary in its existence in the first place..."

[Willum]

[Replying to Artie]

Artie & sundry, we need to put together one of these that asks/answers, "Can the universe exist with/without a APE/MGB?"

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 303 by For_The_Kingdom]

Hi, For_The_Kingdom

Defining something as true in order to PROVE that it is true, isn't logically valid.

2 + 2 = 4 is a tautology, thus 2 + 2= 7 fails to understand the meaning of each term.

Red herring. 2+2=4 is a necessary truth, just like any other mathematical proposition. There is nothing that you said or CAN say that will change this fact.

I'd say that playing with words is a red herring tactic as well. A tautology is necessary by way of logic.
Necessary truth = tautology. The same thing is said twice in different words.
We could say that X=X is a "necessary" truth, and a tautology. We are just saying the same thing twice in different words.

But premise 1 is not a tautology and neither is the S5 axiom <>p -> []<>p (possibly implies necessarily possible), or the S5 theorem <>p => <>[]p. If you keep seeing the implication as tautological that is because you only see one definition of necessity.

And if you can't see that all possible necessarily true propositions must be actually true, that is because you fail to understand the nature of necessity.

So, by defining MGB as necessarily true, you mean to say that it's true. So, by saying that MGB necessarily exists, you are simply saying that it exists. It just "has to be". Generally, things that have to be true ARE true. Things that necessarily exist usually DO exist.

You would have to prove that MGB necessarily exists. To me, MGB is nothing more than a concept. Some concepts don't have a referent in reality. Some concepts might not exist in any possible world.

Defining something as true in order to PROVE that it is true, isn't logically valid.
Begs the question, you see.

[Inigo Montoya]

Note that Kingdom doesn't give any rational reason why such a being is necessary he just pronounces that such a being cannot fail to exist.

This is really all that needs repeating ad nauseum until he can be bothered to address it. Bold it in every reply. Make it a standalone OP. Whatever. Until this point is addressed, the argument is wholly unjustified, and not worth 40 pages of attention.

[Blastcat]

Note that Kingdom doesn't give any rational reason why such a being is necessary he just pronounces that such a being cannot fail to exist.

This is really all that needs repeating ad nauseum until he can be bothered to address it. Bold it in every reply. Make it a standalone OP. Whatever. Until this point is addressed, the argument is wholly unjustified, and not worth 40 pages of attention.

I was holding out for 41

[MadeNew]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

Yes, i see people who claim atheism but also say "a god might exists, but it wouldn't be any of the gods we know of"...

Now think about that... If God might exists, but is somehow unknown and out of our knowledge, then that would be believing in something you haven't any evidence for (Im just recalling a recent debate). That means you'd believe in something that is unknown to you, which you have no evidence of. A bit absurd... Isn't it?

If it is possible for a God to exists, then i think it is an necessity that this God would be KNOWN in someway or another. Just like TRUTH is uncovered and known, if God exists then He must surely be uncovered and known. It is no surprise then that Jesus Christ said "I am the LIGHT", because that would have to be a necessity of a all knowing, and all powerful being...

I make the claim that IF God exists, He is certainly known.

[wiploc]

Let's imagine a gumdrop named Jake. If I ask you whether Jake may exist, you'll likely say yes. Because Jake may exist and may not. So you concede that Jake may exist.

Which means that Jake does exist in some possible world.

And suppose I now say that Jake has some characteristics I didn't mention before. One is that Jake is necessary: If Jake exists in any possible world, he exists in all possible worlds.

Another characteristic is that Jake takes up the entire universe: In any possible world in which Jake exists, there is no room for anything else. Jake is always the only thing in his universe.

And, note, you have already conceded that Jake exists in some possible world! Therefore, he exists in all possible worlds. Therefore nothing exists in the actual world except for a single gumdrop!

See, you've just screwed yourself in your own silly, nonsensical counter-argument. How so? Because you just defined Jake as "a necessary being which exists in every possible world, worlds at which there is no room for anything else".

That is YOUR definition of this Jake being. Now, if there is NO ROOM FOR ANYTHING ELSE TO EXIST (within these worlds)...then how in the HELL do we exist in the actual world. Obviously, there is room in the actual world (which is included in the "possible worlds"), otherwise, we wouldn't be here!!!

The fact that we are here, in the actual world, with all of this space to occupy, defeats your entire argument!!!

SMH. And you have the nerve to call the MOA more stupider than the one you proposed, yet you are not able to easily defeat the MOA as I just did yours.

LOL.

We know that Jake doesn't exist because there are possible worlds in which Jake doesn't exist. Therefore, since Jake is defined as necessary, he cannot exist in any possible world.

If you understand that about Jake, why don't you understand it about your necessary god? The logic is exactly the same. It is exactly as easy to defeat your argument as it is to defeat mine, because they both fall to the same refutation.

[wiploc]

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, 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)."

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.

Then why can't we just say, "The rest of the universe (the non-god part) exists by the necessity of it's own nature"?

If that argument works for you, why doesn't it work equally well for us?

[wiploc]

Most of us agree with P1? Well, I went back and did a count - 4 out of 13 people accepted P1, one of whom have since stated he changed his mind. Granted it is sometimes hard to tell if someone is accepting or rejecting P1 if they don't explicitly states so, but it's pretty conclusive that it is not most of us.

Ok, so before this thread was posted, how many of you can honestly say that prior to this thread, your contention was that "God cannot possibly exist?"

Not all gods are impossible. But the peculiar god of the MOA is impossible. This I knew before you started this thread.

Most of you had no problem at least accepting that it is POSSIBLE for God to exist...

It is possible for some gods to exist.

but now, since you realize the implications of such a statement, now it is cool to just deny the possibility altogether,

It is not possible for a necessary god to exist. A necessary god would exist in every possible world, but some possible worlds are godless. Therefore, necessary gods do not exist in any possible world. Therefore, it is not possible for necessary gods to exist.

which means that the argument is definitely working...and that is obvious that it is working if you have to adjust to it, as opposed to the argument adjusting to you.

The argument is only working if by "working" you mean refuted.

Besides, regardless of how many us agree with P1, if you accepted that you didn't give support to P1, and the whole thing hinges on that unsupported premise, then my original counter-argument holds - the Modal Ontological Argument is question begging, and depends entirely on defining God as a necessary being.

I've already supported the notion that all possible necessary truths must be actually true, and I haven't see anything that has under-minded that FACT as of yet.

Once you admit that God possibly exists, you are stuck like chuck, with no way out.

Nor is there any way out of the fact that the logic of your argument proves god's nonexistence as easily as it proves his existence.

Which makes the MOA exactly worthless.