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]

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.

Well, tell that to him, not me lol. My argument was just fine without the word "tautology" entering the discussion.

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.

I defined Artie as a being that existed necessarily in an early post...but does it follow that just because I defined Artie that way, that therefore, Artie's existence is necessary?

No, it doesn't. And the fact that I've acknowledged this point over and over again DESPITE the fact that you people are still using straw man tactics in this regard, that should tell you that this is NOT the case.

And you are raising this objection as if it is some "new" thing as we are 30+ pages into the thread. Others have raised the same issue and I've addressed it time and time again...are you not paying attention? Did you think you were coming up with some new objection?

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

No, they are not the same, because your argument is self-defeating...mines isn't.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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"?

Because the universe began to exist...and nothing that begins to exist can exist due to the necessity of its own nature.

Cmon now, people.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

When you can't offer any good refutation of the actual MOA, I guess its best to attack whatever angle you can...such as this unjustified over-analyzation of what I said based on what you asked. SMH.

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.

Dude, I specifically said; IF I DIDN'T HAVE EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION, I WOULD BE OPEN TO ACCEPTING THEIR GOD.

Now, what part of that are you NOT understanding? Failed attempt at a "gotcha" moment.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[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.

I plainly see, as most do, the imperfection and hence evil from the very God you accuse of perfection.

Like what?

[Zzyzx]

.

Because the universe began to exist...and nothing that begins to exist can exist due to the necessity of its own nature.

Cmon now, people.

Do we now have a claim that the universe began to exist and a god did not begin to exist?

How can it be that people (ancient or modern) know these things? Where did they learn? Are they making up stories?

My position is that I do not pretend to know how universe(s) or gods come into existence (or do not come into existence as the case may be).

I am aware that some or all of the thousands of proposed gods MAY come into existence through human imagination.

[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.

FTK.. he isn't asking IF P1 is true, he is asking WHY P1 is true.

If God's existence is possible, God must exist.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 337 by For_The_Kingdom]

We people don't dodge, we debate

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.

Well, tell that to him, not me lol. My argument was just fine without the word "tautology" entering the discussion.

Saying that something that exists exists is a stupid tautology. If something exists NECESSARILY... it just exists.

Saying that something exists necessarily and that it exists is a tautology. It's a descriptive word, that. He got it spot on. Playing with words isn't going to help you there.

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.

I defined Artie as a being that existed necessarily in an early post...but does it follow that just because I defined Artie that way, that therefore, Artie's existence is necessary?

In reality, Artie exists, and does so NECESSARILY.
The MGB ...... WE DON'T KNOW

maybe YES and maybe NO

No, it doesn't.

In THIS possible world, Artie exists necessarily. The OTHER possible worlds, he might not. But who CARES about those other worlds, we already KNOW that Artie exists. Saying that he MIGHT not is a bit ridiculous. HE MIGHT NOT.. but he does, you see.

Now, when it comes to MGB.. we don't have ANY evidence that there is one, so we must invent clever arguments to make it happen. WHY DON'T you just say that it's possible.. and therefore, true.

How about that's insane.

And the fact that I've acknowledged this point over and over again DESPITE the fact that you people are still using straw man tactics in this regard, that should tell you that this is NOT the case.

YOU PEOPLE

... stop using that ... it makes me feel like a troll. I'm human just like you. So, its WE people, and I would love to include you into the possible world where people are ALL people.

Hows THAT for "You people"?

The problem is that you insist that P1 is true, and people, US PEOPLE, aren't buying it.

Now what? A tantrum?

And you are raising this objection as if it is some "new" thing as we are 30+ pages into the thread. Others have raised the same issue and I've addressed it time and time again...are you not paying attention? Did you think you were coming up with some new objection?

- yes -

and avoiding my questions isn't an answer.

it's a dodge

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 343 by For_The_Kingdom]

For_The_Kingdom

Hi, I mean no disrespect, but it's like you don't understand what I consider to be very simple questions. Many people are asking you these in one form or another. I think it really would be important that you answer them.

Here goes another try:

FTK.. he isn't asking IF P1 is true, he is asking WHY P1 is true.

If God's existence is possible, God must exist.

You don't seem to understand the questions, so I will repeat them:

1. WHY should we accept that P1 is true? It might NOT be true, it might BE a false statement. There might not BE any such possible world. How do WE know?

2. Why is MGB even POSSIBLE? It might NOT be.

3. Why must MGB be NECESSARY?

4. Is there a possible world in which there is NO MGB? You know, like in ~P1?

[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.

I plainly see, as most do, the imperfection and hence evil from the very God you accuse of perfection.

Like what?

Like, name one thing he did that was perfect, that doesn't rely on a magical future state, or by putting perfection in the definition.

Because the universe began to exist...and nothing that begins to exist can exist due to the necessity of its own nature.

Cmon now, people.

You're talking to US like this is our first rodeo, but we've been countering this ingenuous line of reasoning you are relying on for quite sometime, here, I will repeat:

The Universe began to exist as you so naively put it, when matter changed from one state to another. It existed before in one state, transformed into another, eventually solidifying into reality as we know it. So, what you call a beginning, wasn't a creation.

Tell me you can see the difference.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I issued a challenge; use whatever theorem, modal logic, or WHATEVER...use WHATEVER you want to explain to me how 2+2 is true our world, but not other possible worlds.

Why is it whenever I attempt to show you decisively how 2 + 2 does not equal 4 you decline? Only because it would destroy your neat argument?

Finally, I see no need for this necessary being. It's not needed for creation, nor life, nor anything I can think of, as anyone with a modern education should realize. What's it needed for?

The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Douglas Adams