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]

[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 = | & |.

If you have 2 apples...and I gave you 2 more apples...would you have a total of 4 apples, or 11 apples?

*Sigh*.

[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.

My pleasure.

Yeah, that's what I really think.

Then I think me and you disagree with what is actually going on here.

Well, then, the debate is over.

Oh, then I shouldn't see any more posts from you on this thread, correct?

I think a lot of people learned from the discourse.

I can honestly say that I did learn something meaningful.

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.

There is that adjustment I was talking about, eh, Bust?

The argument never even came CLOSE to convincing me

I doubt the MOA has ever convinced anyone. But I doubt that the unconvincingness has anything to do with the soundness/validity of the argument.

.. but I used to AT LEAST be able to agree with the first premise. Now, I understand that I can't even do THAT.

Because once you grant P1...the rest just flows like the Nile..

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

It has become one of my faves.

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.

No prob. I do it For The Kingdom.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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 same thing applies to both questions.

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

If you don't see the difference in "Why is God necessary", and "Why is it possible for God to exist", then I can't help you.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 384 by For_The_Kingdom]

Hi For_The_Kingdom

____________________________

If you can't justify P1, the argument fails.

You think that you have, and your opponents don't agree.
The debate is OVER.

The MOA argument has FAILED to convince.

_____________________________

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

All atheists look alike lol.

It's because we are always pulling out our hair and look frustrated so much of the time. A lot of us wear distinctive tattoos.. so watch out for that. That's how you can tell some of us apart.

2) You refuse to justify P1.

I did justify P1, throughout this thread.

And it seems that most ( if not all ) atheists don't agree that you did. Bit of a problem since you are in a debate with atheists.

I think that MOST atheists who have posted in here don't accept P1 anymore. I know that I used to.. and changed my mind by reading and thinking about the posts.

Good discussion.. very fruitful, but you the argument ITSELF has failed. Your attempt to JUSTIFY P1 has failed. It's a small point, but nevertheless, you failed this debate.

Let me put it nicer..... You didn't win the debate.
You've abdicated by refusing to justify P1 to our satisfaction.

[Willum]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

How very clever of you to completely misunderstand the point.
I tell you what, by your line of reasoning, YOU will have eleven apples, the rest of us will have four.

However, when we actually go to eat them, the rest of us will not be disappointed by the amount of apples, and you will wonder where your additional apples are.

All because you don't understand the logic framework or the reality framework.

Like I said, very clever.

[Bust Nak]

Forgive us Christians for believing in true propositions.

There is nothing to forgive if that was what was happening. I will not forgive you for presenting a premise as the truth simply because you believe it.

On what basis, though?

On the basis that it is question begging.

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

Because the argument wasn't clear enough for them - hence my earlier remark on tricking people.

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.

Whether it applies to anyone or not, it is still not support for your premise. You can't say something is true because person XYZ believes it.

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.

That's an affirming the consequent fallacy. ((A->B) & B) does not imply A.

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

P1 is false, because it is not possible for God as defined to exist. But that's beside the point - you haven't justified P1 with anything other than your assertions and that's not good enough.

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?

Rhetorical question backfired, because that's exactly what the argument is. That's why "Artie!!!" applies to the MOA. You define God as necessary, therefore, God exists. The Modal Ontological Argument is not valid without that definition. Which is why I said to you all the way back on page 3, you can't define God into existence.

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?

Well, no we can't, not if we are using your reasoning. That's why I said your reasoning isn't good enough to for Artie and it isn't good enough for God.

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.

You are moving the goal post, that isn't the question being asked. The question is whether atheists have denied the possibility of God before you came along and posted this thread... and the answer is yes.

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

Right, which means someone who claimed that people only started to play basketball as a respond to Michael Jordan, is factually wrong.

Are you forgetting that you questioned our honesty when you were informed that atheists have denied the possibility of God long before the MOA was first conceived, and long before you explained the MOA to us?

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

First of all, we didn't have to, because you have failed to justified P1. Secondly, have you counted how many of us have gave you argument for denying P1?

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.

I've just told you, your assertions aren't good enough. While a generic god may well be rational and coherent, don't just tell us the concept of a necessary God is rational and coherent, prove it.

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.

1) It's up to you to prove that it is coherent. 2) I have already proven that a necessary God is impossible.

Mere assertion.

Incorrect. Assertions backed by a deductive proof.

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?

Of course I can, but that's besides the point - you, as the presenter of the argument, were supposed to do the legwork, not I. As your audience, I merely have to question what you say.

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.

Okay, just note that it's quite a different thing from what you actually wrote, "if the KCA is false, then the MOA is false."

It does? I must of missed that part.

I know. It is ironic given your earlier remark questioning if I have been following the thread.

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.

I will do better, I will repeat it here for you:

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 thrice. It is for ALL X, anything and everything. Your MGB, if one exists at all, cannot be a necessary being.

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.

Whether a syllogism is non sequitur or not, is to do with its validity. I think you would find the argument there, is quite valid. The term you are looking for, is unsound.

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.

Incorrect. Nothing I said assumes or requires Artie is the same thing as MGB. A chair isn't the same thing as Socrates either, and yet the two following statements are still true:

If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal.
If this chair is a man then this chair is mortal.

Go on, tell me which of the above is false if you want to argue against first order logic; and let me be very clear - when it comes to the validity of qualifiers, it isn't me you are arguing against, you are arguing against first order logic itself.

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.

Incorrect, step 3 requires God being necessary. Without a necessary God, step 3 is non sequitur. You were informed of this pages ago, which is why the I said the MOA reduces to "because I DEFINE God as necessary, therefore, God exists."

"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 same thing applies to both questions.

Sure the truth of a statement does not depend on the why, but you are a duty to answer the latter, you need to justify your premises.

If you don't see the difference in "Why is God necessary", and "Why is it possible for God to exist", then I can't help you.

Well I don't think a person who not only refuses to justify their premises, but go that one step extra to reprimand others for demanding justification for said premises, is in any position to offer help to others.

I will however do my best to help you understand the importance of justifying your own premise.

[Furrowed Brow]

A contingent truth cannot be possibly necessarily true, though..you are conflating two different concepts...why? I don't know.

Errm...maybe because you said they were contingent...

*Sigh*...these are contingent truths, bruh. It is the same thing, post after post....smh.

I said thank you for admitting that...because that means...

As I said before, any proposition will fall under the realm of necessity, or contingency. There is not middle ground here.

...yes....that is it...it mean they cannot be necessary truths..and thus the proposition a proposition cannot be possibly necessarily true, but actually false cannot be a necessary truth.

Until you address the challenge that was issued to you, my responses to you will continue to be short and sweet. I refuse to get sucked into any more gish gallop without my points getting addressed.

They were answered.

But to clarify just what has been said:

explain to me what form of modal logic negates the proposition of "2+2=4 in all possible worlds, making it a necessary truth".

"2 + 2 + 4" is a tautology it is true by definition. This means there is no world in which "2 + 2 = 4" is ever false. There is no modal logic that denies a tautology is necessarily true.

P1 It is possible that a maximally great being exists

This is not a tautology and is not true in every world.

P3 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

This is not a tautology and is not true in every world.

a proposition cannot be possibly necessarily true, but actually false.

This is not a tautology and is not true in every world.

I have given arguments, examples and shown how and why. There are two example sentence awaiting your refutation.

Here is a counter example: right this moment Fred's future is possibly necessary, but right this moment Fred future is not actually true.

Another example: a cure for cancer on some random future date is possibly necessarily true, and a cure for cancer on some random future date is actually false.

As you noticed these propositions are not necessary truths, but they may be true. If they may be true your understanding of necessity is mistaken.

Good luck.

[wiploc]

You can only call it valid if you agree that this is valid too:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.

Then you'd have to show that a MGB is internally inconsistent and cannot possibly exist. Can you do that? No, you can't.

Plantinga says that a god can't create all possible worlds because some possible worlds aren't created by gods. For a god to create a not-created-by-a-god world would be a contradiction, so it can't happen.

In like manner, a god can't exist in a godless world. That would be a contradiction. Therefore, since some possible worlds are godless, no god that exists in every possible world.

This proof is simple and obvious; there aren't two sides to the issue

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 384 by For_The_Kingdom]

The former question [why is God necessary] 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.

To remind readers, I'll take the following from the OP.

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.

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).

FTK is now on record as saying that the question of [why is God necessary] has nothing at all to do with his premises, despite the fact he outlined what a necessary truth is in his preface and what his god is in the actual premises.
I call this being disingenuous.

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.

But not by For_the_Kingdom with people such as myself. I don't know what FTK will say about the KCA. I am familiar with the KCA when it was discussed by other people, but not by FTK. For all I know, FTK will bring some new form of the KCA that will blow my socks off (not very likely in my mind though). However until that day happens, until the day that FTK creates a thread about the KCA and actually discusses it, FTK has no grounds at all to stand on when it comes to asserting that the KCA supports the MOA.

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.

In my experience, when someone promises to do something and when I ask them after a while why they haven't done it only for them to say "I never said when", that typically means that they have no plans to actually do it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

And it seems that most ( if not all ) atheists don't agree that you did.

Well, I guess we disagree to disagree.

Bit of a problem since you are in a debate with atheists.

Not a problem at all.

I think that MOST atheists who have posted in here don't accept P1 anymore. I know that I used to.. and changed my mind by reading and thinking about the posts.

Keyword: "Anymore".

So you realized that by admitting that the existence of God is possible (P1), you are thereby granting the actual existence of God...so to negate that, you simply deny the possibility of God altogether.

So in other words, the implications of P1 is so strong that you have to reject it altogether after previously granting it.

Like I said, an adjustment had to be made on your part...and hey, you can flip flop all you want, doesn't make the slightest difference to me..but I know that I accomplished what I needed to accomplish with this thread...I presented it, defended it, and made the opposition make "in game" adjustments to my contentions.

If that aint a win, I don't know what is.

Good discussion.. very fruitful, but you the argument ITSELF has failed.

LOL.

Your attempt to JUSTIFY P1 has failed. It's a small point, but nevertheless, you failed this debate. Let me put it nicer..... You didn't win the debate.

I didn't win the debate, yet it is YOU who are admitting to agreeing with a premise of the argument, and after seeing its implication, you then changed YOUR MIND.

You: I agree, the existence of God is possible, but that doesn't mean that God exists.

Me: If the existence of God is possible, then God must exist.

You: Well, I change my mind, the existence of God isn't possible.

That is it, in a nut shell.