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]

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

More unjustified pats on the back, I see.

Except a perfect being can't create imperfectness

So basically, "a perfect being can't CHOOSE to create a car that won't break down". That is demonstrably false.

, and an all good being that exists everywhere can't create something that has the possibility of evil.

Evil is only the absence of "good", and the absence of "good" stems from free sentient human beings that purposely chooses to commit acts that are contrary to good.

So, to take away evil is to take away free will...and if free will is taken away, you wouldn't be on here "freely" choosing to reject the idea of God, would you?

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.

And I can only assume that you didn't bother to read my last post to you, because if you did, you would have saw that I addressed it.

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?

But that is the thing; God's commands aren't subjective, they are objective. If you believe that objective moral values and duties DOES exist, then you can only base that sentiment off of a standard that his "higher" than your own. And that standard can come come from a personal being, as moral values are PERSONAL standards..and there is no naturalistic justification of any objective moral values...so on atheism, there is no such thing.

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.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.

Then tell me in what possible world are free human beings created without the possibility of committing evil acts? If you can do that, then I will gladly grant your point.

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

2 second? Yet the objection came only AFTER our first few interactions.

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.

Nonsense. Your objection about "arriving at a point to create" or whatever it was...I prefer to answer that objection on the KCA thread. No one is running from anything...I don't want any spoilers from my beloved KCA thread.

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

The refutations are what is bad. Atheists have tried for centuries to prove that the concept of God is internally incoherent. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

I think you can see the logic of this. There is evidence that the natural world exists.

Thanks for telling me that...because before I read this post, I didn't know that the natural world existed.

There is zero evidence that there is anything beyond that.

There is. KCA.

Based on the evidence, there is no reason to conclude that there is anything but the natural world.

Then with that same logic, there also isn't any evidence that there ISN'T anything beyond the natural world, so therefore, we should not conclude that there ISN'T anything beyond the natural world.

See how that works? Not to mention the fact that I wholeheartedly disagree with "there is no evidence that there is anything but the natural world".

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

Ok, so if I asked you to explain to me the ORIGINS of your computer, that would be an easy task, right? But here is the catch; the answer has to lie WITHIN the computer. No external explanation can be given.

Now, go ahead, explain to me the origins of your computer. Can you do it? No, you can't. Naturalism, which is your worldview, is self-defeating...because you cannot use science/nature to explain the origins of its own domain.

Easy money.

P1 is defeated, so P2 doesn't matter.

It isn't. The existence of God is possible.

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?

A MGB cannot draw a squared circle..and if a MGB cant do it, it cant be done.

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.

You are rejecting premises based on false contentions. What cannot be conceived cannot be said to exist.

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...[/quote]

[JoeyKnothead]

.
Moderator Zzyzx removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complementing or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

More unjustified pats on the back, I see.

Except a perfect being can't create imperfectness

So basically, "a perfect being can't CHOOSE to create a car that won't break down". That is demonstrably false.

, and an all good being that exists everywhere can't create something that has the possibility of evil.

Evil is only the absence of "good", and the absence of "good" stems from free sentient human beings that purposely chooses to commit acts that are contrary to good.

So, to take away evil is to take away free will...and if free will is taken away, you wouldn't be on here "freely" choosing to reject the idea of God, would you?

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.

And I can only assume that you didn't bother to read my last post to you, because if you did, you would have saw that I addressed it.

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?

But that is the thing; God's commands aren't subjective, they are objective. If you believe that objective moral values and duties DOES exist, then you can only base that sentiment off of a standard that his "higher" than your own. And that standard can come come from a personal being, as moral values are PERSONAL standards..and there is no naturalistic justification of any objective moral values...so on atheism, there is no such thing.

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.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.

Then tell me in what possible world are free human beings created without the possibility of committing evil acts? If you can do that, then I will gladly grant your point.

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

2 second? Yet the objection came only AFTER our first few interactions.

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.

Nonsense. Your objection about "arriving at a point to create" or whatever it was...I prefer to answer that objection on the KCA thread. No one is running from anything...I don't want any spoilers from my beloved KCA thread.

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

The refutations are what is bad. Atheists have tried for centuries to prove that the concept of God is internally incoherent. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

I think you can see the logic of this. There is evidence that the natural world exists.

Thanks for telling me that...because before I read this post, I didn't know that the natural world existed.

There is zero evidence that there is anything beyond that.

There is. KCA.

Based on the evidence, there is no reason to conclude that there is anything but the natural world.

Then with that same logic, there also isn't any evidence that there ISN'T anything beyond the natural world, so therefore, we should not conclude that there ISN'T anything beyond the natural world.

See how that works? Not to mention the fact that I wholeheartedly disagree with "there is no evidence that there is anything but the natural world".

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

Ok, so if I asked you to explain to me the ORIGINS of your computer, that would be an easy task, right? But here is the catch; the answer has to lie WITHIN the computer. No external explanation can be given.

Now, go ahead, explain to me the origins of your computer. Can you do it? No, you can't. Naturalism, which is your worldview, is self-defeating...because you cannot use science/nature to explain the origins of its own domain.

Easy money.

P1 is defeated, so P2 doesn't matter.

It isn't. The existence of God is possible.

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?

A MGB cannot draw a squared circle..and if a MGB cant do it, it cant be done.

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.

You are rejecting premises based on false contentions. What cannot be conceived cannot be said to exist.

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...

OK, you think it is foolish, although I don't know why.

If your thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions, then how can you trust your own instincts? If you deny free will, then you are implying that your rejection of God is not by choice, but chemical reactions , which means that your atheism is not based upon logical reasoning, but chemical determinism, which cannot be a basis for truth value.

Yet, another self-defeating concept from the side of atheism.

You going to answer my question now?

Did you ask a question?

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

If you could "find in way of reply"...then guess what, it is there.

This isn't an answer.

Right, it was my assessment of what you did.

You made a ridiculous claim which was pointed out to you

No, the ridiculous claim was "A perfect being cannot create something imperfect", which is what you claimed, and which is demonstrably false.

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.

I called it how I saw it...and it was "unjustified praise of one's self". Throughout our interactions on this topic, the very best (from your POV) issue that you raised was regarding omniscience and free will. Thats it.

The problem of evil, failed. God and perfection, failed. Omniscience and free will? Hmm, that requires a little brain work, admittedly.

Either way, you've done nothing to disprove any of the premises, despite your best efforts.

No, the free throw example had to do with all knowing, not all powerful. Please go back and review the appropriate posts for clarification.

No need to go back, because I know what I used the example for.

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 you can't "choose" to do anything besides what you will ultimately do. In the year 1800, it was a fact that in whatever future year X , you will join this forum.

So, based on that future fact (from year 1800), you could not choose to do something contrary to what you would ultimately do, which is join the forum.

Yet, you freely choose to join the forum. You were not programmed or under any mind control...you joined freely, did you not?

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

I get the point that you are making...but if I apply it to human beings, that would also take away our free will...but no one can deny the fact that we are freely making choices DESPITE our inability to do things contrary to what we will ULTIMATELY do...and I don't see any difference between that, and God.

For example..

1. God is omniscient
2. God knows that Bob will marry Sue
3. Therefore, Bob MUST marry Sue

So we see that Bob cannot do anything contrary to what God already knows he will do.

But on the same token..

1. God doesn't exist
2. It is a fact that Bob will eventually marry Sue
3. Therefore, Bob MUST marry Sue

So now we see that despite the fact that there is no God or foreknowledge of what Bob will do, if it is a fact that Bob will marry Sue, Bob cannot FAIL to marry Sue.

However, regardless of whether there is a God/foreknowledge or not, Bob is still the one making the choice, is he not? Bob's free will is not hindered or altered (no pun intended) based upon foreknowledge, or lack of foreknowledge.

Again, this is a tough one, but I am under the conclusion that free will and ominscience aren't incompatible.

The KCA thread will indeed put the nail in the coffin of atheism.
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.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

That is why the distinction between contingent truths and necessary truths were given...and is CONTINUED to be given...over and over again. Everything is in the OP, and if you still don't get it, then that is on you.

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?

Either God's existence is possible, or it isn't possible. Plain and simple. If it is possible, he must necessarily exist...if it isn't possible, he must necessarily NOT exist.

Pretty straight-foward, if you ask me.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[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.

You said there was nothing else to discuss with the argument...so, I refuse to discuss anything else with you regarding the argument.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I propose a more accurate summary.

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

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

A: That doesn't follow. A contingent God only need to exist in one possible world.

You: Well I defined God as necessary in the preamble.

A: The existence of that sort of gods isn't possible.

Me: Oh, then the existence of a necessary God is inconceivable. Well, why am I able to conceive of it, then?

[For_The_Kingdom]

That is just a personal comment that fails to advance the argument. It is a overly broad and ultimately false comment. There is nothing 'true' about your ontological argument or its propositions.

Then, by all means, prove P1 false.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Excellent summary! "Well I defined God as necessary in the preamble" provides a great example of circular reasoning: simply defining something in a way to make it 'true,' then acting as if such silliness has an effect on reality.

Nonsense. How a being is defined is independent as to whether or not such a being exists, or can exist.

[Danmark]

That is just a personal comment that fails to advance the argument. It is a overly broad and ultimately false comment. There is nothing 'true' about your ontological argument or its propositions.

Then, by all means, prove P1 false.

Your error is in giving any substance or value to P1. Saying you can conceive of something does not make it so.

P1: "It is possible that a maximally great being exists."
The burden of proof lies on you to prove it is even possible a "maximally great" being actually exists.

If you had termed it as the "greatest possible being" or simply the "greatest being" I might agree. But you are claiming it is possible for a MAXIMALLY great being to exist. Tho' you haven't defined what this means, I suggest this is a dubious proposition. Aren't you claiming that it is possible an infinitely great being might exist? Such a being would likely leave no room for anything else. There would certainly be no free will, no other beings capable of independent action. Yet we know there are other beings who apparently do act independently and at least APPEAR to have free will. Therefore, if you are going to claim there is such an infinitely great being, or that there is even the possibility of such, you would appear to be wrong.

I repeat, the burden is on he who alleges "It is possible that a maximally great being exists." But even if you could meet that burden, that is a universe away from proving such a being exists. This whole effort is a classic example of how the medieval scholastics got themselves all balled up confusing symbolic logic with actuality.

[Bust Nak]

I propose a more accurate summary.

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

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

A: That doesn't follow. A contingent God only need to exist in one possible world.

You: Well I defined God as necessary in the preamble.

A: The existence of that sort of gods isn't possible.

Me: Oh, then the existence of a necessary God is inconceivable. Well, why am I able to conceive of it, then?

Loaded question cannot be answered. The existence of a necessary God is inconceivable. Therefore you are unable to conceive of it. Simple really.