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]

So God is an idiot who wants to destroy the Earth? Great definition of perfection.
I have no idea what KCA thread is, and just because you say KCA thread, doesn't mean your logical arguement isn't toast because of a physical one. See the TT thread.

Kalam Cosmological Argument.

[rikuoamero]

Also, I'm just here to point out we STILL have no KCA thread. STILL. It's what...going on two weeks now since Kingdom first mentioned it and promised to create that thread?

Did I ever say when I was going to create the KCA thread?

For the record, that wasn't wiploc who said the above, it was myself. So to see if I understand you correctly
1) Your argument here, the Modal Ontological Argument, according to you rests on P1.
2) You refuse to justify P1.
3) Several times, you say that the MOA has an ally thread (not your phrase I know, but it's the best phrase I can think of now) in the form of "KCA".
4) You promise to create that thread and to talk about it.
5) KCA supposedly helps the MOA
6) And now...you're as good as saying that you won't be creating the KCA thread?

Think about how that makes you look as a debater. Think about how weak it makes your arguments look. You refuse to justify them, and promises of expansion on other arguments now go unfulfilled.

[Artie]

Found something interesting about "Necessary existence".

"Some versions of the ontological argument rely in some way on the claim that God possesses necessary existence, meaning it is not possible that God could have failed to exist. But this cannot be true. For something to exist necessarily means that a logical contradiction inevitably follows if one tries to imagine otherwise. (In Plantingas formulation, something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible worlds.) It is not possible, for example, to conceive of a triangle with any more or less than three sides, or a prime number that is greater than all other prime numbers, or a married bachelor. However, it is possible to conceive of a world where God does not exist " the existence of atheists proves that. No contradiction is entailed by this proposition. Therefore, Gods existence cannot be necessary."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... cal:modern

[Bust Nak]

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

i.e. That's what Christians believe. Not good enough.

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

I think we are finally getting somewhere. Keep this thought in mind. You aren't trying to convince believers, you are presenting your argument to unbelievers, the definition of God as defined by believers, is off to a bad start.

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.

Right, so why would you accuse us of adjusting our position to suit the argument, when you know we it makes zero sense for us to have ever held that position in the first place?

Say what?

I am saying that some atheists went along with P1 does not make P1 true.

I'm lost.

I am saying even if people cannot disprove P1, does not make P1 true.

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.

Exactly. That's why MOA doesn't work. When you define God as a necessary being...come to find out, he is not necessary at all.

Because how a being is defined has nothing to do with truth value after all.

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.

That you know what a necessary being implies, doesn't mean you didn't make a mistake with your imagination. Here is an analogy you like so much:

"when I defined Artie as a necessary being...come to find out, he is not necessary at all."

You think Artie isn't necessary? By the time one gets to P3, one would realized Artie wasn't a contingent being...based on the whole "existing in every possible world."

If that isn't good enough to prove Artie is indeed a necessary being, it isn't good enough for God.

Again, Artie lol.

Same thing applies to MGB lol.

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.

You are just repeating the same red herring again. And you will get the same counter-point: Whether the problem of evil works or not, does not change the fact that atheists have appealed to it. Address this point.

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

Save the trash talk for later: You are not addressing my point. The mere existence of the older thread, is enough to prove you weren't the first person to explain it to us.

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.

No one? You say that like everyone went along with P1. Most people didn't.

Artie...LOL

Sure laugh about it, as that's exactly what's wrong with the MOA.

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

Your assertions aren't good enough. Prove it.

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.

*facepalm* Well it's quite clear you are not hip to what is happening... You understand why "Artie" argument can't get past P1, guess what? The MOA has the exact same problem, it can't get past P1.

Is P1 true, yes or no?

No, but that's beside the point - your argument hinges on the definition of God, and as you kept repeating "Artie!" Look at the MOA with the same lens you do Artie.

Why should I? It is true.

You should retract it because it directly contradicts your own claims.

Say what?

I am saying answering "I don't know how" when someone challenge you to support a premise, will not convince people that your argument is sound.

Artie!!!

MGB!!!

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).

No, it is not possible.

Point?

It's the same point since page 3. Your argument is question begging for trying to define God into existence. i.e. the same point you raised when you say "Artie!!!"

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

That contradicts with what you said about KCA. You say MOA fails if KCA fails. So which is it? MOA depends on KCA being true, or does the MOA stands on its own two feet?

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

A difficult to follow argument would do the same.

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

Actually it has everything to do with it. It's refutes P1 of your 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.

But that's exactly what I have done. Proving the impossibility of the existence of the MGB in the actual MOA. I say you owe me some shock and impressed-ness.

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.

How in the world would you be familiar with modal logic without an understanding first-order logic? Quantifier are surely a prerequisite to modal operators, that was why I said ironically my argument is easier to follow than the MOA.

No matter. It means what exactly what it says. X is not clearly defined because it is a placeholder, you can substitute X with anything you like. For example, the claim "All men are mortal" is formalised as:

For all X: man(X) -> mortal(X)

You can swap X with MGB, you can swap X with Artie, you can swap X with a chair, you can swap X with Socrates or anything else you like to get:

man(MGB) -> mortal(MGB)
man(Artie) -> mortal(Artie)
man(Socrates) -> mortal(Socrates)
man(chair) -> mortal(chair)

They say if MGB is a man then MGB is mortal; if Artie is a man then Artie is mortal; if Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal; if this chair is a man then this chair is mortal. Instead of listing everything explicitly, you use the "for all" quantifier. The concept is simple even if you aren't familiar with the syntax.

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

That's only true if God is a necessary being. Prove it.

The entire OP was geared towards defining and giving an argument of the MGB as identified in the argument.

Then make it part of the syllogism, it would then be all that obvious where the flaw is.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 367 by For_The_Kingdom]

So the meaningless of 2 + 2 = 4.
It's a valid logical argument, and your topic is based on logic.
Ages back, I mentioned to you that logic must have a lattice of some kind to stand on.

So, two is represented physically by two units: ||
In binary that would be 10, stiil ||.
In binary || + || = ||||, or 100.
In base three 2 + 2 or || + || = |||| still, but it is written 11.
So, 2 + 2 = 11 in another logic.

All we have to do, is change you logic base of your argument, and it no longer makes sense.

And that is what many of the arguments we have shown you do... just change the logic framework, not the reality of 2 = | & |.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 363 by For_The_Kingdom]

Hello, For_The_Kingdom

By refusing to continue, you have conceded the debate. I want to thank you personally and publicly for bringing this great topic up for debate.

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.

Oh really?

Yeah, that's what I really think.

I've already answered this question, and I refuse to answer it again, to anyone.

Well, then, the debate is over.
It was fun.

I think a lot of people learned from the discourse.
I changed my mind concerning the possibility of an MGB, in premise ( 1 ) for example, and that rather surprised me. I was just too QUICK to bite the fairness lure. Very clever argument for the unwary.

The argument never even came CLOSE to convincing me.. but I used to AT LEAST be able to agree with the first premise. Now, I understand that I can't even do THAT.

What a pathetic fail of an argument.. coached in SUCH high felutin' language.
High quality BS that one.

So, I thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to take another look at it.
We don't get enough of that kind of thing in here.

[Danmark]

Morality doesn't come into it.

If a god is were
able to prevent all evil, and
smart enough to prevent all evil, and
determined to prevent all evil,
then that god would prevent all evil.

God may have morally sufficient reasons for permitting some evil, though.

Therefore, if evil exists, no such god exists.

Ok, so on atheism, evil doesn't exist, then. Science doesn't tell us what is good, and what is evil...so what is the basis or foundation of objective morality? There is none.

Ridiculous! The basis for objective morality has been established many times, including here on this forum. Even some animals have a basic morality based on reciprocity and fairness. Without this morality they would not have survived. The social animals, including homo sapiens, had a survival advantage if they cooperated with each other. THAT is the basis of our morality. We do not need to be told what is 'good' by some priest who claimed he got his information from an imaginary being he claimed he knows.

Dr. Frans B. M. de Waal is a biologist and primatologist known for his work on the behavior and social intelligence of primates. His first book, Chimpanzee Politics (1982), compared the schmoozing and scheming of chimpanzees involved in power struggles with that of human politicians. Ever since, de Waal has drawn parallels between primate and human behavior, from peacemaking and morality to culture. His scientific work has been published in hundreds of technical articles in journals such as Science, Nature, Scientific American, and outlets specialized in animal behavior. His popular books " translated into fifteen languages " have made him one of the worlds most visible primatologists. His latest books are Our Inner Ape (2005, Riverhead) and The Age of Empathy (2009, Harmony).

De Waal is C. H. Candler Professor in the Psychology Department of Emory University and Director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Center, in Atlanta. He has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences (US), the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences. In 2007, he was selected by Time as one of The Worlds 100 Most Influential People Today, and in 2011 by Discover as among 47 (all time) Great Minds of Science.
https://www.ted.com/speakers/frans_de_waal

Scientists and atheists establish their claims by observing what actually happens.
Your positions stated here are based on what you want to believe, not on scientific observation. What should we believe? Your claims based on what an anonymous author claimed about something we cannot observe? Or what we can see with our own two eyes? Your claim about morality is as weak and unfounded as your argument that formed the basis of this thread.

[For_The_Kingdom]

For the record, that wasn't wiploc who said the above, it was myself.

All atheists look alike lol.

So to see if I understand you correctly
1) Your argument here, the Modal Ontological Argument, according to you rests on P1.

Bingo amigo.

2) You refuse to justify P1.

I did justify P1, throughout this thread. The question of "Why is God necessary" is a completely different question than "Why is it possible for God to exist?....the latter question has been justified throughout the thread.

The former question has absolutely nothing to do with any of the premises, and therefore I refuse to answer it on this thread. However, I will answer it on the future KCA thread.

3) Several times, you say that the MOA has an ally thread (not your phrase I know, but it's the best phrase I can think of now) in the form of "KCA".
4) You promise to create that thread and to talk about it.
5) KCA supposedly helps the MOA

The KCA is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Of all the arguments for the existence of God to date, the KCA is probably the most discussed, among advocates and opponents alike.

3) Several times, you say that the MOA
6) And now...you're as good as saying that you won't be creating the KCA thread?

No, what I said was; I never said "when" I would create it. The plan was to wait until the heat died down from this thread first...and THENNNN create the KCA thread. The KCA actually puts the nail in the coffin of naturalism, in my opinion.

I can't wait to discuss it.

Think about how that makes you look as a debater. Think about how weak it makes your arguments look. You refuse to justify them, and promises of expansion on other arguments now go unfulfilled.

Small steps, not leaps and bounds.

[Bust Nak]

I did justify P1, throughout this thread. The question of "Why is God necessary" is a completely different question than "Why is it possible for God to exist?....the latter question has been justified throughout the thread.

Buzz! "Why is it possible for a generic god to exist" is a different question to why is it possible for God as defined in the preamble to exist." The latter you have failed to answer.

The former question has absolutely nothing to do with any of the premises, and therefore I refuse to answer it on this thread. However, I will answer it on the future KCA thread.

That's just a strawman version of our complains. Justifying P1 means justifying the definition presented as well.

[For_The_Kingdom]

i.e. That's what Christians believe. Not good enough.

Forgive us Christians for believing in true propositions.

I think we are finally getting somewhere. Keep this thought in mind. You aren't trying to convince believers, you are presenting your argument to unbelievers, the definition of God as defined by believers, is off to a bad start.

On what basis, though?

Right, so why would you accuse us of adjusting our position to suit the argument, when you know we it makes zero sense for us to have ever held that position in the first place?

Because some of you did adjust your position as the argument went on.

I am saying that some atheists went along with P1 does not make P1 true.

Well, to those of whom it concerned; they granted the existed of a MGB (God). Maybe it didn't apply to you, but to those of whom it does apply to...it is what it is.

I am saying even if people cannot disprove P1, does not make P1 true.

If P1 is true, then you can't disprove it. If it is possible for 7 to be divided evenly into 938497348383883577575893939393201010...it is impossible to disprove.

Exactly. That's why MOA doesn't work. When you define God as a necessary being...come to find out, he is not necessary at all.

Well, if what you are saying is true, then please tell me which of the premises is false and why.

Because how a being is defined has nothing to do with truth value after all.

Right, but since the argument isn't "because I DEFINE God as necessary, therefore, God exists"...the above quote really doesn't apply to what is happening, doesi t?

That you know what a necessary being implies, doesn't mean you didn't make a mistake with your imagination. Here is an analogy you like so much:

"when I defined Artie as a necessary being...come to find out, he is not necessary at all."

You think Artie isn't necessary? By the time one gets to P3, one would realized Artie wasn't a contingent being...based on the whole "existing in every possible world."

If that isn't good enough to prove Artie is indeed a necessary being, it isn't good enough for God.

Well, I actually went straight for the gusto when I said P3...because after all, we can determine that Artie isn't necessary right from the start with P1, can't we?

You are just repeating the same red herring again. And you will get the same counter-point: Whether the problem of evil works or not, does not change the fact that atheists have appealed to it. Address this point.

No one is denying that the problem of evil is what atheists have appealed to...the question is; does the problem of evil undercut any of the premises of the argument...and the answer is no.

Save the trash talk for later: You are not addressing my point. The mere existence of the older thread, is enough to prove you weren't the first person to explain it to us.

Yeah, and plenty people had played the game of basketball before Michael Jordan, didn't they?

No one? You say that like everyone went along with P1. Most people didn't.

And most of those that didn't could not give a rational reason why.

Your assertions aren't good enough. Prove it.

The concept of God is rational, coherent, and of course within the bounds of logic and reason...and any concept that fits such criteria is possible...in some possible world.

*facepalm* Well it's quite clear you are not hip to what is happening... You understand why "Artie" argument can't get past P1, guess what? The MOA has the exact same problem, it can't get past P1.

Then demonstrate why the concept of God is internally incoherent. Thats all you have to do. If you can do that, you've defeated the argument my man!! LOL.

You should retract it because it directly contradicts your own claims.

Consider it retracted. Apparently I misread somethin.

No, it is not possible.

Mere assertion.

It's the same point since page 3. Your argument is question begging for trying to define God into existence. i.e. the same point you raised when you say "Artie!!!"

I can easily articulate to you why the existence of Artie isn't necessary, and he will therefore fail the P1 test...now, can you do the same thing with this MGB? No, you can't.

That contradicts with what you said about KCA. You say MOA fails if KCA fails. So which is it? MOA depends on KCA being true, or does the MOA stands on its own two feet?

My point was; even if there was no KCA in existence, the MOA would still be a sound/valid argument on its own....but since we do have knowledge of the KCA, we can compare/contrast what each argument is saying, and once we do that we can see a supporting relationship between both of them.

A difficult to follow argument would do the same.

Well, thats what I'm here for...to tighten up all loose ends.

Actually it has everything to do with it. It's refutes P1 of your argument.

It does? I must of missed that part.

But that's exactly what I have done. Proving the impossibility of the existence of the MGB in the actual MOA. I say you owe me some shock and impressed-ness.

Again, I must of missed it. Point me to the aisle of "Proving the impossiblity of the existence of the MGB"...and I will walk up and down the aisle...seeing if there is anything useful on the shelves.

How in the world would you be familiar with modal logic without an understanding first-order logic?

I know what I know...and I don't know what I don't know.

Quantifier are surely a prerequisite to modal operators, that was why I said ironically my argument is easier to follow than the MOA.

1. All males are human
2. My cat is a male
3. Therefore, my cat is human

That syllogism is easy to follow, but a non sequitur.

See where I'm going with this? Sure you do.

No matter. It means what exactly what it says. X is not clearly defined because it is a placeholder, you can substitute X with anything you like. For example, the claim "All men are mortal" is formalised as:

For all X: man(X) -> mortal(X)

You can swap X with MGB, you can swap X with Artie, you can swap X with a chair, you can swap X with Socrates or anything else you like to get:

man(MGB) -> mortal(MGB)
man(Artie) -> mortal(Artie)
man(Socrates) -> mortal(Socrates)
man(chair) -> mortal(chair)

They say if MGB is a man then MGB is mortal; if Artie is a man then Artie is mortal; if Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal; if this chair is a man then this chair is mortal. Instead of listing everything explicitly, you use the "for all" quantifier. The concept is simple even if you aren't familiar with the syntax.

You have a law of identify problem. If there is at least one thing that is true about Artie that isn't true about the MGB in question...then Artie and the MGB cannot be the same thing, regardless of what you attempted to show above.

So the Artie that we are talking about (on this forum), cannot be the same thing as the MGB in the argument. So all of this "swapping" stuff that objectors like to use against the argument...doesn't work at all.

That's only true if God is a necessary being. Prove it.

The soundness/validity of the MOA is so powerful that one doesn't have to prove that God is necessary..all one has to do is prove that it is POSSIBLE for God to exist (as a necessary being), which I've done.

Then make it part of the syllogism, it would then be all that obvious where the flaw is.

I will give you that...next time I will put the definition of God into the syllogism...although I don't see what difference that would make. But nevertheless, just so there is NO CONFUSION, in the future, it will be there.