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?

[JoeyKnothead]

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"...

This atheist seeks to know which of 'em folks do.

Current data indicates it's mostly the wishful gods to exist.

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?

I figure religious folks have 'em their evidence, just that I don't find me any of it convincing.

And how absurd is it to declare I know the mind of a god I can't show even has him one of 'em.

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...

Or IT is, lightbulbs DONE got sentient. And startED REportING to THE internet every TIME it is we turn US one of 'EM on.

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

If.

If I weren't so sofisticated, folks'd think I wasn't.

If I were a swan, I'd be gone.
If I were a train, I'd be late.
And if I were a good man, I'd talk with you more often than I do. LPP
If I were to sleep, I could dream.
If I were afraid, I could hide.
If I go insane, please don't put your wires in my brain.
If I were the moon, I'd be cool.
If I were a rule, I would bend.
If I were a good man, I'd understand the spaces between friends.
If I were alone, I would cry.
And if I were with you, I'd be home and dry.
And if I go insane, will you still let me join in with the game?
If I were a swan, I'd be gone.
If I were a train, I'd be late again.
If I were a good man, I'd talk to you more often than I do.

- Ralph Stanley

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 313 by MadeNew]

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"...

Incorrect. People like myself who are atheists don't say "it WOULDN'T be any of the gods we know of". We typically say "A god might exist, but it doesn't have to be the one you claim exists. If it is that god, show us evidence" or something along those lines.

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?

Yes it would be absurd. This though doesn't do anything to refute the notion of a deistic god (a god who creates the universe but then doesn't interact with it in anyway). This paragraph just says that humans tend to be stupid enough to believe in something with no valid evidence.

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.

Aaaand just like Kingdom, you say something is a necessity without explaining how or why it is a necessity.

if God exists then He must surely be uncovered and known.

Why? How? What if God simply doesn't want you to know him/her/it?

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...

Does this mean only omniscient/omnipotent entities can say "I am the light"? Because I am far from those two terms and I can say that phrase.
Also, how the heck do you get from "God would have to be known" to this God being Jesus Christ?

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

Your argument is not supported by any evidence or by logic. Swap out the word God for any other thinking entity, and it falls apart. A certain specific human could exist but not be known by anyone else, he could be hiding. Why can't an existing God hide from his creation?

[For_The_Kingdom]

It's a done deal actually. The being you describe can't exist, period. The dilemmas you created are unsolvable.

More like the argument you presented is irrefutable.

Right, and your god being able to have free will defies logic and reason. Your god being all good defies logic and reason since evil exists and your god created it.

On atheism, evil is subjective and therefore has no relevance whatsoever in any discussion on the question of how things ought to be..

And on Christianity, evil exists as a result of imperfect beings utilizing their free will on something (evil) that is contrary to what they ought to use it for (goodness).

Big difference.

Your god being maximally great defies logic and reason since it created imperfection.

Imperfection in this context is arbitrary. When we say God is "perfect", we mean that everything that he does is right, accurate, and correct...which means that he cannot do anything contrary to what is right, accurate, and correct.

But if he chooses to create something that is imperfect, that is based on a choice, not because of his lack of ability. If my goal is to make a free throw, and I miss it, it is because I am imperfect...as I tried, and failed..

But if I shoot a free throw, and my goal is to miss, and I miss...the miss was not due to my imperfection, but my choice.

It is arbitrary and of course your objection missed the mark...but that must be due to your imperfection.

Your god existing eternally yet reaching a point in its existence where it created the universe defies logic and reason, which means it can't have created us.

KCA thread.

This isn't just about choosing to miss a free throw, Kingdom. Your being can't do much of anything. It is impotent and irrational.

Non-sequitur. You haven't really provided any juice behind any of your contentions. You are basically hitting singles instead of home runs.

I can't point out being that does any of it, your particular flavor of god included. There isn't any empirical evidence or data that supports any god claim in the history of mankind. None. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

If everything was based on empirical evidence and data, then I guess we can rule out atheism/naturalism. There isn't any empirical evidence that supports the notion that natural world is all there is and there isn't anything beyond it.

Of course that is why naturalism is a self-defeating position, one that you happen to hold to.

Second, the empirical evidence supports P2 of the KCA argument...and we just take it to theism from there.

But this conceivable nonsense is a true non sequitur. We can conceive of beings that can defy logic, can't we?

Oh, really...we can? Can you conceive of a being that can draw a squared circle? You can? Ok, what does this squared circle look like? I want to see.

So that would make them greater than a divine entity that can't defy logic.

Well, until you can answer the question I posed above, I guess the above statement is rather...unfounded.

The logic defying being can't pass through your modal nonsense, but that doesn't mean we can't conceive of it. I'll explain for a third time that what we can conceive has NOTHING to do with what we can prove. Imagination is not a substitution for reality...

We can't conceive of absurdities...unless you can get that squared circle all nice and drawn up.

Since I am an agnostic atheist this is a useless question because I am not constrained by MGBs or gods, so have no logic issues to avoid as you do.

But since you asked, I will tell you that I don't know for sure. There is research on both sides of the matter, and it is not conclusive if free will does exist, or if everything we do is just a matter of chemical reactions and quantum fluctuations that are really responsible for the so called "choices" we make. But again, this has nothing to do with your MGB not being able to have free will.

Ohhh, chemical reactions, eh? So, lets say we find out that our choices are based upon chemical reactions and quantum fluctuations....if that is the case, we may as well release all prisons from their cells...because after all, they are not responsible for their actions, they only acted based on the chemical reactions in their brains.

So therefore, there is no accountability. In fact, how can we even know the truth value of the proposition "Does God exist", if all of our thinking is based upon chemical reactions and nothing else?

Foolishness I tell ya, foolishness.

Please solve the dilemmas you've created. Oh wait you can't, nevermind. This thread is over...

I can and I did.

Omniscience with the other "attributes of god" IS the paradox Kingdom. Not certain situations involving it. The very claim of that ability is logically absurd, as my examples have attested to.

All of those examples were answered with no sweat, sir.

It's ridiculous that you think that a god being could still be omniscient when all it takes is one example to show how it cannot be true with the other attributes. You think a god is all knowing except when it can't be all knowing? LOL!

Unjustified praise of one's self.

And, naturally, your bible claims these things true, which is impossible.

If it was impossible, then it wouldn't be actually true.

If the god MGB critter knows all (as you claim), then it already knows before it starts shooting free throws with you what shots it will make and which shots it won't. It can't "choose" to miss a shot that it already knows it will make. If it could then it can't be all knowing, because it didn't already know that the outcome would change. Your critter can only do what it already knows, or else it isn't all knowing. So there is no free will, no ability to choose, for anything it does for it's entire existence because it "knows all". I hope I gave you a better explanation here.

First off, the free throw example was made in the context of a few of you saying that since God is perfect, he can't create or do anything imperfect...and I used the example of the free shooting context to demonstrate the fact that a perfect being can "miss" a shot, and yet remain perfect.

Was it the best example in the world? No. But did it drive home the point, yes.

Second, regarding free will and omniscience. True, God can't do something different other than what he already knows he will do...

But then again, no one can do anything contrary to what they ultimately will do. If it is a fact that Bob will join the military next year, Bob cannot FAIL to join the military next year...but that has nothing to do with foreknowledge and I don't see how foreknowledge is in conflict with Bob's free choice of joining the military, if and only if the foreknowledge was on par with an entity that forced Bob to do so, making it not a free choice but a duress decision.

Try reading the whole thing instead of removing part of one sentence out of it and trying to understand it that way. That's like going straight to page 4 of the instructions to build a swing set and then wonder why nothing makes sense...

What if I told you I read the entire thing and it still didn't make sense. And would that actually be true.

Which has nothing to do with your conceivable angle, because your conceivable angle is all wrong (explained earlier in this post again). Since you are in the necessary mood, maybe you could finally get around to telling me why a MGB is necessary..

I promise you that question will get answered in the KCA thread. It has no basis here.

You have to because you keep dodging questions and avoiding dilemmas that your own claims have created. It's like a merry-go-round and dodge ball at the same...

I don't need to dodge when the truth is on my side.

Just talking about our conversation, Kingdom.

I repeat as needed.

I appreciate that you are replying to so many different people however. I do credit you for that.

It is like being Batman. One day, I gotta deal with the Joker...and when I'm finished with the Joker...then the Penguin...and after the Penguin...Croc...after Croc..Two-Face...and after Two-Face...the Riddler...and after the Riddler...Scarecrow...and on and on and on..

It is a tough job for Batman, but however, he does it for Gotham City, right? Well, I do it For the Kingdom of God.

But the list of things it can't possibly create includes the universe, free will, evil (and a whole range of other non-good emotions), imperfection, and so on. So it is not possible for it to be the creator of this universe and all it contains.

I don't recall you proving all of that good stuff. Don't get me wrong, you are trying...I will give you that.

Is there a logical reason for this belief, or are you just avoiding another dilemma?

I will put it this way...are you familiar with the NFL regulations regarding instant replay? Do you know how, in order for the call to be overturned, the officials have to see indisputable evidence the CONTRADICTS the official call...and if there is no indisputable evidence, the original call STANDS?

Well, the same concept can be applied here. There is the original call; which is that the MOA is a logically sound/valid argument. You threw out the red flag for me to re-review the original call...now..

As objective as I possibly could, I reviewed the original call again and considered your points, particularly regarding the omniscience/free will thing....which is a tough one, I ain't gonna lie...I will go out on a limb and say that the free will argument against the existence of God is the best argument that the atheists have the offer...however, I do believe there is a way out of it, and that, followed by the strong evidence that SUPPORTS the MOA, like the KCA...I am going to go with the original call...that the soundness/validity of the MOA still stands.

Because if the MOA isn't true, then the KCA can't be true...but I am absolutely positively 100% certain that the KCA is true...and I can absolutely positively 100% prove it.

God can't create free will remember, it is all knowing!

So lets say you are an omniscient human being, right? And lets say you have a son, whose knowledge is finite. Lets say you took your son to a toy store, and you told him to pick out any toy that he wants, and it is his...and your son eventually picks out a PS4 (that is a toy, right? lol).

Now, DESPITE you knowing what your son will choose, does that negate the fact that he freely choose it? I don't think it does.

God can't create imperfection as a perfect being, and it can't exist everywhere all at once as a perfect being if there is imperfection in part of its "everywhere"! Your belief doesn't really matter at this point...

So basically, "God cannot be perfect, if he exists among imperfect beings". I need more juice than that.

Now you are slipping a little Christian dogma in here, because you assume humans with free will has to mean evil will happen

In what possible world would humans, with the freedom to do both good and evil, WON'T exercise their freedom to do commit evil acts?

In what possible world?

Well, when you skip all the hard parts like you did I'm not surprised that you don't feel very expended. Dodging doesn't use a lot of brain energy...

To the batcave..

[For_The_Kingdom]

Kingdom, if someone uses the MOA to support their claim that their god exists BUT explicitly says that their god had NOTHING to do with resurrecting Jesus (as in, they don't believe it happened), would you accept their usage of the MOA?

No, I wouldn't. Why? Because of the good reasons I have to believe that the Resurrection argument is true.

Now, without the argument based on the Resurrection, I would at least be open to their god...but the Resurrection argument and its truth value closes the door on all other gods, in my opinion.

Remember, any traditional argument for the existence of God is more, in general...but the Resurrection argument is very specific, isn't it?

[rikuoamero]

Kingdom, if someone uses the MOA to support their claim that their god exists BUT explicitly says that their god had NOTHING to do with resurrecting Jesus (as in, they don't believe it happened), would you accept their usage of the MOA?

No, I wouldn't. Why? Because of the good reasons I have to believe that the Resurrection argument is true.

Now, without the argument based on the Resurrection, I would at least be open to their god...but the Resurrection argument and its truth value closes the door on all other gods, in my opinion.

Remember, any traditional argument for the existence of God is more, in general...but the Resurrection argument is very specific, isn't it?

As I expected, this means that you're being disingenuous. The 'logic' (what little of it there is in the MOA) is supposed to be open to any god, not just the one you worship. Yet here you are saying that if a person says to you "My god exists, as shown by the MOA, but my god did not resurrect Jesus", you do not accept their usage of the MOA.
Notice what I asked. I did not ask whether you would believe that their god exists because of other reasons. I asked you, and pay attention here...whether you would accept their usage of the MOA.
And the answer is no. The MOA apparently, in Kingdom's eyes, is valid only when it is used to 'validate' the existence of the Christian god, and not any other god.

[Willum]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

When we say God is "perfect", we mean that everything that he does is right, accurate, and correct...which means that he cannot do anything contrary to what is right, accurate, and correct.

Well, my answer to this is: As someone who is descended from those who bit from the forbidden tree, and now posses the wisdom of good and evil.

I plainly see, as most do, the imperfection and hence evil from the very God you accuse of perfection. If you can name a single perfect act that doesn't, like your MOA, use the definition of perfection to define God's perfection, I'll concede the topic.

Let's limit that to what he HAS done, not what he will do... for obvious reasons. I might do the same things myself...

[Inigo Montoya]

Obligatory request (5th) for Kingdom to justify defining God as necessary..

[For_The_Kingdom]

So you are saying that was not meant to be support for P1, just incidental detail? Good. Strike that from the list.

Not to support it, but for the working definition that is stapled to the MGB label throughout the argument.

Well, some would, that's because the Judeo-Christian God is considered contingent.

Then the mere definition of God, as it is defined by the unbelievers on here, is off to a bad start.

What's more, many would still accept that it is possible for the Judeo-Christian God (MGB) to existed after they have seen this argument, as long as it remains a contingent being.

Exactly!!! Of course they would, because if you grant that it is possible for a necessary being to exist, then by default, you are granting that such a being exists...and the atheist can't have that...so they would just rather grant the idea the possibility of a contingent being...because after all, the implications are a lot less stingy.

Either way, that is not support for P1 now, is it? Strike that from the list too.

Say what?

Already done, but that's besides the point, you are supposed to be the one supporting it, it's not for us to disprove it. Strike that from the list.

I'm lost.

... Defining God into existence. That's what.

But then again, when I defined Artie as a necessary being...come to find out, he is not necessary at all (no offense, Artie lol).

So I guess how a being is defined has nothing to do with truth value after all.

Is it? Prove that you are not conceiving a contingent being, thinking it necessary by mistake.

Easy. By the time I got to P3, I realized I wasn't thinking about a contingent being...based on the whole "existing in every possible world" thingy.

I have argued that it is a logical absurdity because it contradict other stuff. But that's besides the point - the entire thing is based on defining God as a necessary being.

Again, Artie lol.

That's a red herring. I've already told you the mere fact that we have appealed to the problem of evil, is enough to demonstrate that we have long been arguing against the possibility of God. Whether we were successful in doing so, is irrelevant. Address my actual point.

There cannot be a "problem" of evil without assuming or rather presupposing a standard of morality that ought to be, but isn't.

And I don't see how this is done objectively on the atheistic worldview. Perhaps maybe you can explain why.

Evidence says otherwise. It is indisputable that we have denied the possibility of a necessary God before you join this forum, we had the same thing last year, look at the link of the old thread.

No other thread can prepare you for what you face with me.

Sure I remember those posts, I've responded to them myself. Well, that's not good enough. That some people went along with it, is not a reason to think P1 true.

Well..

And to restate one of my side points - if they are saying it "doesn't mean that it exist," they are actually rejecting your definition of God, step 3 is not valid with a contingent being.

Right, but since the argument is in reference to a necessary being, their objection would be borderline straw man.

I went through all the trouble of distinguishing between contingent/necessary in the very beginning of the OP, and no one even bothered to read it!! LOL.

The fact that it is there at all is the problem - use a different definition and the argument falls apart - P1 would become indisputably false, and step 3 would be non sequitur, all because of a definition. You are defining God into existence.

Artie...LOL

Okay, can you then confirm that the actual support you ever gave, was the definition of God provided?...

The logical validity/soundness/coherence/rationality of the mere concept of the being would imply that such a being exists in some possible world.

...Because as I see it all you are left with is a definition to support P1. Look back to page 3, nothing has changed since then. You are guilty of trying to define God into existence.

Artie!!! LOL..in case you are not hip to what is happening...anytime someone says something about me "defining God into existence", I will refer to "Artie"...because I gave an example of me defining him into existence, yet the argument didn't get past P1. Why? Because how something is defined as nothing to do with the truth value of whether it exists, or is possible for it to exist.

Incorrect, while I do happen to know the implications of a true P1, that's is not the reason why I am rejecting it. The actual reason for rejecting it, is that it is questioning begging.

Is P1 true, yes or no?

Okay, so I guess you are retracting your claim that "If the KCA is false, then the MOA is false?"

Why should I? It is true.

Correct, but that wouldn't convince anybody now, would it?

Say what?

So go ahead and let the whole forum know explicitly, that the carrot argument works as a deductive proof, let us all know that it is useless questioning the definition and you accept that John is a quarterback.

Say what?

I saw the supposed "support" the first time round - I responded to it literally in my first post - You cannot definite God into existence. Nothing you have said since have changed that.

Artie!!!

How about this one: "MGB is defined as a married bachelor, as such 1) MGB is internally inconsistent; 2) what is internally inconsistent does not exist, cannot exist; 3) therefore MGB does not exist." The syllogism is obviously valid. P1 is trivially true based on the definition of a MGB, so much so that I need to give an explanation. Checkmate. 100% deductive proof that God doesn't exist, or is it?

Ok, between your syllogism and the MOA, what have we determined? We've determined that it is impossible for a MGB, as defined in your argument, to exist. But it is possible for a MGB, as defined in my argument, to exist (P1).

Point? You can use any counter-argument you want...but the MOA stands on its own two feet.

Or they can retract it and reject P1 like some did?

So, they've adjusted to the argument. You know, a good argument will make you do such things.

I am afraid it is too late for you, because once you grant P2 of my proof, you are locked in to the point of no return. Perhaps you should read between the fine print before you go signing you life away, LOL?

Kinda ironic if you ask me, my proof is far easier to follow than the MOA for the lay person.

The disproof of your argument has nothing to do with the truth value of my argument.

When you can disprove the existence or impossibility of the existence of the MGB in the actual MOA, then not only will I be shocked, but I will be impressed.

For all X:
1) If there is a possible world where a being X does not exist then X does not have necessary existence.

2) A world that has no sentient beings is one such possible world where the being X does not exist.

3) Therefore X does not have necessary existence

Just so you don't miss it again. It is for ALL X, anything and everything. Your MGB, if one exists at all, cannot be a necessary being.

First off, I don't know what "for all X" means. Second, X is not clearly defined. Address these two, and then I will gladly refute the argument.

[For_The_Kingdom]

A Minimally Great Being would then be a being that is present nowhere. Not existing anywhere.

If it existed nowhere, it can't be an actual being, can it? Cmon now, people. You are doing too much, here. It was fun at first, but now it is beginning to be ridiculous.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Kingdom,

I can imagine a being. I can imagine that this being has all the properties you describe. Please use your own words explaining why this being would have to exist in the real world.

If P1 is true, then the implication of 2-6 is undeniable.