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?

[jgh7]

Ok, basic question. How can we know that premise 1 (it's possible for a maximally great being to exist) is possible?

Does "possible" simply mean that we can imagine in our minds that a maximally great being exists?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 397 by jgh7]

You're a bit late to the party, jgh7. FTK is on record as saying that he doesn't have to justify P1 (P1 includes a Maximally Great Being, which in his words cannot fail to exist).

[Willum]

[Replying to post 396 by For_The_Kingdom]

OK, let's do this.

GOD EXISTS!!!!

Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...
Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...
Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...
Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...
Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...
Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...
Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...Waiting...

You know, the world has been waiting 2000 years and nothing's happened. Nothing's changes, nothing's changed. Nothing will change. Nothing has changed, nothing changed three thousand years ago.

All the tenses of "to be" result in no change, so, your MGB results in no change.
What is a boy to do?

The age, the world, the universe goes on without your MGB's interaction, and nothing happens.

I just don't know what you're going to do about a being, who that, in existing, is completely irrelevant, and since is completely irrelevant, not necessary, and since not necessary... oh, YAWN.

Have faith, maybe something will change...

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 398 by rikuoamero]

Hmm, well I eagerly await the reasons for premise 1 being possible. Until then, this argument is complete bupkis for me.

[Kenisaw]

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.

The argument I presented used the exact definitions you gave of the MGB, which created irrational contradictions that are unresolvable. Your premise is rejected.

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.

Except a perfect being can't create imperfectness, and an all good being that exists everywhere can't create something that has the possibility of evil. I can only assume you haven't forgotten the whole free will problem either. I have yet to see you resolve the dilemmas that you created.

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.

Oh, arbitrary is it. What did you just say above..."On atheism, evil is subjective and therefore has no relevance whatsoever in any discussion on the question of how things ought to be." But subjectiveness with your god, well that's just peachy keen?

So he can't do anything contrary to what is right, accurate, and correct...like create something with the potential for evil? Sounds like a rationalization to me.

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.

So it is correct and right to choose to create something imperfect and capable of evil? What a fascinating statement that is. The creature is all good and everywhere folks, but it choose to create imperfection with evil capabilities that now exists within its all encompassing good existence, even though it's existence is maximally perfect...

This makes no sense.

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

Or you use of the word maximally, followed by a bunch of omni statements that took about 2 seconds to refute...

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.

Not an answer. You keep throwing that out every time you can't think of something better to say. My statement above is just another logic absurdity that you've created that cannot be rationalized away. Your premise is refuted.

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.

Bad analogy. The game actually ended pages ago for you. There are too many logical contradictions in any claim of an MGB.

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.

I think you can see the logic of this. There is evidence that the natural world exists. There is zero evidence that there is anything beyond that. Based on the evidence, there is no reason to conclude that there is anything but the natural world.

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

If it was self-defeating than someone would show why it is logically self-defeating. I've seen no such attempt by anyone.

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

P1 is defeated, so P2 doesn't matter.

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.

You just conceived of it, didn't you? You even wrote it down for us and used italics and everything. If you couldn't conceive of it, how did you do that?

The fact that it can't actually do what you claim doesn't mean you couldn't conceive of it. Just like the MGB coincidentally. Look at that...the premise is rejected.

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.

Apparently not as unfounded as you thought. Just another delicious conundrum you've created with your MGB. The premise is rejected.

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.

That we can't draw it up is reality. That we conceive it shows that we can conceive of things that aren't realistic, like the MGB...

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.

OK, you think it is foolish, although I don't know why. You going to answer my question now?

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

I can and I did.

Odd. The only thing I could find in way of reply was this post, and it certainly wasn't in here...

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.

This isn't an answer. You made a ridiculous claim which was pointed out to you, and your response is "Unjustified praise of one's self". That really solves your dilemma of an all knowing god that can't be all knowing...the premise is rejected.

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

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

Which they can't be true, because they are impossible. And you can't rectify that dilemma either.

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.

No, the free throw example had to do with all knowing, not all powerful. Please go back and review the appropriate posts for clarification. An all knowing god critter cannot choose to miss a shot that it already knows it will make, otherwise it isn't all knowing. So it can't "make a choice" to do anything, because what it is going to do is already known and has to take place.

And, by extension, if a god creature doesn't have free will it's pretty easy to conclude it isn't all powerful...

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.

Fine. Then explain how a god with foreknowledge that it is going to make every free throw shot can decide not to make one of those shots and NOT know it was going to do that...Solve the dilemma

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.

Then please ask for clarification or a re-writing of the intended meaning. I'm more than happy to make another attempt to clearly convey my thoughts.

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.

Well, I think that it does matter here, but I'll hold to that promise and wait for that thread.

The conceivable angle is still all wrong however, as pointed out earlier in this post.

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.

Well you have yet to prove truth is on your side, and you certainly haven't provided an accurate logic exercise to prove truth is on your side either. We haven't seen one shred of evidence either. You can claim truth is on your side, but it is a baseless assertion at this point.

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.

It's all above, and in previous posts. The MGB, and the god of the bible for that matter, cannot logically have onmi-properties and improve on its perfection via creating things, or know all and have free will, or be all good and create potentially evil beings, or exist everywhere and have non-good things like evil, jealousy, etc exist within its existence. It's simple logic, and you haven't shown me to be wrong.

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.

Well I guess that will be the next battleground for you and me. I don't think the MOA is true. In fact I think it has more holes in it than the KCA.

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.

If you know your son is going to pick out the PS4 (and I agree that is a toy), and he picks something different, you can't possibly be omniscient, correct?

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.

It's not just that he exists among them (which is a logical problem since he exists everywhere and his existence is perfect), but BEFORE he created them he had perfect existence. Creating something to be a part of his existence changes his existence, right? How can you change perfection? You can't. There is no way to be more perfect, right? So creating anything, including us, means that perfection is ended. How does a perfect being become imperfect? That's illogical.

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?]

In a natural world without omni-god critters...

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..[/quote]

See you in the KCA thread...

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 396 by For_The_Kingdom]

I'm sure blastcat will respond as well, but I just had to say something about this:

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.

That's hardly fair given we have watched about 40 pages now of arguing over what 'possible' means.

Your entire argument rests on the meaning of this word. When some of us realized you meant a very specific meaning of the word that is used in a specific logic system, we recanted and gave our reason why. Those of us who agreed assumed 'possible' also included 'possibly not' i.e. I don't know.

I await your apology to blastcat for implying a change of mind just to win an argument. The change of mind was due to your word games and a misunderstanding. Would you like your God to hold you to everything you have said if you later realized the truth and changed your mind? Kind of negates the whole 'finding the truth' thing doesn't it?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 396 by For_The_Kingdom]

Hi, FTK

Seems to be your new nickname for your nickname in here

Did you ever have to make up your mind?
- John Sebastian

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

Well, I guess we disagree to disagree.

Oh, of course, but that also means the argument fails over that disagreement. It fails to prove that an MGB exists. And I think that was the point of the argument, yes?

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

Not a problem at all.

No?

You aren't seeking agreement with atheists about this argument?
Weird.

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".

Yeah, go figure, people can and do change their minds. I know that I can and do change my mind. Is it part of the argument that I can't?

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.

I do NOT deny the possibility of a god altogether.. I give the existence of any god a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % probability of being true. So .. yeah, gods are possible. AND so is Santa.

I was granting P1 "for the sake of the argument" FO SHO. And IF I take away that agreement, the argument fails completely. So, you REALLY need that agreement, don't you?

But alas, as an atheist, I don't NEED to agree. I'd have to have some justification to agree that MGB if it's defined as NECESSARY, IS possible.

It's just as silly to me to say that an MGB exists NECESSARILY as to say that it straight out just plain ordinary exists. I changed my mind because I found out that I WAS WRONG.

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

Yes, I agree.

As soon as I realized that MGB was defined as a NECESSARY and not just POSSIBLE being.. I changed my mind about P1. Possible isn't NECESSARY.

Once you have shoe-horned us into accepting P1, you are right. Everything follows from that. But by reading the posts in here and thinking about it for myself a little bit, I realized that my agreement was a TRAP. P1, on the surface, seems fair and reasonable, but it turns out that it's not.

It's a silly trap that you want to keep us in. Well, sorry, but I got out.
I've changed my mind.

Is that not allowed in your logic?

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.

I don't know why we can't make "in game" adjustments.

BUt Ok, in your opinion, you win.
And everyone else sees it as a spectacular fail. Don't worry, it's your opinion you seek.

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

LOL.

Oh, good point.

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 seem to have difficulty with people changing their minds.

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

Right. I can still agree with that.

God can POSSIBLY exist, but that doesn't mean it exists, necessarily. The trick of the way it's put it that it seems reasonable at first. UNTIL we think about it a bit. I got caught that way.. Define a being that is possible then say it necessarily exists?.. clever move, if it can STICK. It fails, but only if we THINK about it a bit.

I was just goofy enough to not pay your OP enough attention. I must have missed the part about NECESSARY ... My bad, for sure. FO SHO.

People like me are WAY too ready to agree with premises if they can.. so the argument PREYS on nice people like me. But eventually, the argument gets bit back. And WHO made this argument originally? ... now, I don't trust HIM, either.

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.

I think that's how it went down, alright.

And FYI.. I still say that God is POSSIBLE. It's just that you define your god as NECESSARILY EXISTING. So nah.. I don't think that IS possible. But I didn't know that until later. Maybe I didn't read the OP carefully. Maybe I didn't understand it very well. MAYBE .. I just took another look at P1 again...

That is it, in a nut shell.

And in a nutshell it's too bad that people can and do change their minds, right?
Otherwise, we'd all be theists, I suppose.

What a PARTY we'd have!

But you also have to remember that at first, I said that your argument was only presenting HALF of the possibilities. Remember that? It was way back in post 19:

ref:Re:%20The%20Modal%20Ontological%20Argument

I said that it was possible that P1 was TRUE, and it was also possible that P1 was FALSE.. remember that? Maybe there were so many people at you that you missed my reply then. That happens in here.

So, yeah, as I recall, I COULD agree with P1, AND agree with ~P1, too.
So, the whole thing is a wash there.. a bit of a waste of time, if you want my opinion about it.

In any case the MOA just plain outright fails. But that don't mean your god aint real.
It just means yall haven't proved it this way is all.

[wiploc]

That argument applies equally to your god.

Not if P1 is true, which it is.

It is not true if it is false, which it is.

[wiploc]

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.

That move can be styled in two ways.

You could be saying that your god is more interested in being moral than in preventing evil. That is, you could be renouncing the claim that god is omnibenevolent. "Yeah, god is good, somewhat, but that's on a back burner. He's got other irons in the fire." In other words, you could be saying that your god isn't omnibenevolent.

Or you could be saying this X factor, this morality thing, is also good. So good consists of happiness and also of the X factor. And evil consists of unhappiness and immorality. And, therefore, god can't completely eliminate unhappiness because he's also busy with the X factor (whatever vague and undefined thing you are calling morality for the purpose of this argument).

Again you are putting us to the guess, because even that argument can have two different meanings.

You could be conceding that god isn't omnipotent. That's why he can't accomplish two things at once.

Or you could be claiming that there is a logical incompatibility between your X factor and happiness. That is, you could be saying that god can't eliminate evil while being moral, because morality is evil.

But, in that case, if god's morality is evil, and god's desire to be moral is important enough that he lets it interfere with his desire to prevent all evil, then god is not omnibenevolent.

So, you are either saying that your god isn't omnipotent, or that he isn't omnibenevolent. One or the other.

In either case, you aren't contradicting the PoE, which states only that a god who was omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent would not not coexist with evil.

You can't contradict that by saying, "Yes, but what if he isn't omnipotent?" or, "Yes, but what if he isn't omnibenevolent." Those aren't defenses; they are concessions.

Therefore, if evil exists, no such god exists.

Ok, so on atheism, evil doesn't exist, then.

You made that up. I'm a utilitarian. I think that happiness is good, and unhappiness is evil. More accurately, think that things that cause happiness are good, and things that cause happiness are evil.

Gods don't come into that.

You haven't offered your own alternative definition of evil. In fact, when the subject came up, you were quite coy about it. You said that you can imagine what gods have to do with good and evil, but then you didn't offer any explanation at all.

It's a secret inside your own head.

Maybe you have an argument, but it's a secret argument.

In the meantime, no case has been made in support of your patently absurd claim that "on atheism, evil doesn't exist."

Science doesn't tell us what is good, and what is evil

Nonsense. If someone asks you whether antibiotics or female circumcision does more to increase happiness, science is exactly what you turn to to answer that question.

Or you can define "evil" and "good" in any other way, and, once you define them, science is exactly what you need to turn to to discover what behaviors increase good and decrease evil.

...so what is the basis or foundation of objective morality? There is none.

You cannot offer any single definition of "objective" that will support your case. If you want to argue that theist morality is objective and atheist morality is subjective, you'll have to equivocate. You'll have to surreptitiously two-step between conflicting meanings of the word "objective."

Naturally, you will address this in your objectivity thread, which you'll start right after your PoE thread, which you'll start right after the nonexistent thread that you keep referring us to.

Oh, and btw..you can have the last word in this regard...since it isn't until I started my own thread that I am now a firm believer of sticking to the topic of the thread and not conflating other arguments into one thread.

Right.

That's only a "problem" for those who believe evil exists

Then it is a problem for most atheists...because they are the ones that are proponents of the infamous argument from evil.

Some theists believe in evil, and also believe in a tri-omni god. Those people are clearly wrong. They believe in a logical contradiction, like a square circle.

The PoE is the explanation of why that belief is self-contradictory.

[wiploc]

You proved that Jake the necessary gumdrop doesn't exist.
I proved that Jehovah the necessary god doesn't exist.

The two arguments have exactly the same defeat.

Nonsense. Your argument was internally absurd. What happened was, you tried to fancy up the definition of this "Jake" being, and in the process you ended up defining Jake as some thing that cannot possibly exist.

Which is exactly the problem with your maximally great being.

It was obvious, and I pointed it out.

Yes, I made it obvious on purpose. If Jake exists, then you and I and the actual world do not exist.

Now you are trying to place your absurd concept of Jake onto my rational definition of the MGB as defined in the MOA...and it ain't happening.

Your MGB exists in all possible worlds, including those that don't have MGBs. That's a logical impossibility.

The impossibility of the MGB should, by this point, be as obvious to you as the impossibility of Jake.