Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

Greetings. A couple of years ago, I created a similar thread on the Modal Ontological Argument for the existence of God. It was a fun thread, with some by some interesting exchanges.

I thought we should reexamine the argument and why I feel it is just one of many valid/sound arguments for the existence of God.

The Modal Ontological Argument (MOA), of course, using “modal” logic…and this frame of logic relies heavily on “possible world” semantics. This is the great Alvin Plantiga’s version of it…and it is extremely elegant, I must say.

But lets define some stuff first..

What is a possible world? A possible world (PW) is a complete and consistent way the world is or could have been. In other words, there is a “possible world at which Lebron James wins MVP at least twice in his career”.

What this is saying is that there are a set of circumstances which will allow for the said proposition to be true.

There is also a possible world at which the said proposition will be false (should at the end of his career, he didn't win MVP at least twice).

So, when PW semantics is being used, it is just describing a set of circumstances which may/may not be true (or possible).

That being said, lets distinguish two concepts of truths..


Contingent truth: is a true proposition that could have been false; a contingent falsehood is a false proposition that could have been true. This is sometimes expressed by saying that a contingent proposition is one that is true in some possible worlds and not in others.

For example, the fact that I currently live in the United States is a contingent truth…because there are a set of circumstances at which I could possibly currently live in another country…so where I live is based on a variety of circumstances.

Necessary truth: is a proposition that could not possibly have been false. This can be expressed by saying that a necessary truth is a proposition that is true in every possible world. An example of a truth that many philosophers take to be necessary in this sense is: 2+2 = 4.

Good examples of necessary truths are mathematical, as 2+2=4 in all possible worlds, with no exceptions…making its truth necessary.

Now, we’ve defined possible worlds, we’ve defined the two concepts of truths…now, lets define God..

God, at least in the Christian tradition, has been defined as..

Omnipotent: All powerful
Ominicient: All knowing
Omnipresent: Active and in control everywhere at all times
Eternal: Having no beginning, or end, not depending on anything for its existence. An existence which is..necessary (which means under no circumstance can it cease existing).

For sake of the argument, we call this being a Maximally Great Being (MGB).
Now, the question is; does such a being exists or not?? Which brings forth the argument..

See next post..

[Kenisaw]

My apologies on replying a week after your post. Somehow I missed that you replied.

That's funny. You move the goal posts, and claim others are being childish. At least be an adult and admit when you've changed your standards to fit the moment.

Changing the standards? The standard has always been "if it can be imagined/conceived, then it is possible".

That has been the golden standard for the entire argumentation...and thus far, no illogical concepts have been conceived by anyone...but there has been a whole lot words thrown together to make certain stuff "work", which have all been failures.

All powerful gods have been shown to be illogical. You claim below that you have refuted this, so for the sake of brevity I'll answer all that below.

Taxi-cab fallacy indeed my boy. You said if it could be imagined...your words, not mine.

Yeah, I said it, and I meant it.

I'm sure you did mean it. Imagining something and being able to put it into words is the only requirement you listed. A square circle can be imagined, so can all powerful gods. Both make zero sense, but according to the Ontological that means that they are possible...hence the Ontological isn't logical at all.

The Ontological argument has already been refuted, your failure to admit it does not change that. It has been shown in this thread and others that:
-Omniscience is impossible.
-Omnipotence is impossible.
-Everpresent is impossible.
-The claim that the universe had a cause cannot be substantiated.
-Gods always existing is a logical impossibility.

There isn't anything left to discuss about Ontological.

I already responded to all of that, and until you address what I specifically said as it pertains to what you conjure as "impossible", then there is a lot to discuss about Ontological

Let's go over it again then.

You originally claim in the OP that god is:

Omnipotent: All powerful
Ominicient: All knowing
Omnipresent: Active and in control everywhere at all times
Eternal: Having no beginning, or end, not depending on anything for its existence. An existence which is..necessary (which means under no circumstance can it cease existing).

It was pointed out that it is impossible for a MGB to be both all knowing and all powerful (knowing the future and being able to change it cannot both be possible at the same time).

In post #135 you said:

When we say God is all powerful (omnipotent), we simply mean that God can do all logical things (anything that is logically possible)

This is a change from the OP, but even William Lane Craig had to switch to the "logical" MGB because he realized that omni gods weren't possible. So be it. However, the MGB is still illogical. No being can be omniscient, because it doesn't know what it doesn't know. Put another way, if there is knowledge that you are not aware of, then you don't know that knowledge AND you aren't aware that you don't know that knowledge. This is a necessary truth about knowledge. There is no logical way to know that you know everything. This alone is an unknown, making omniscience impossible. To further it, any being cannot know how MUCH it doesn't know. Not only does it not know what it doesn't know, it doesn't know how much it doesn't know. When it comes to knowledge, a MGB is a limited being.

Omnipresence is the exact same problem. You can't know what you don't know. There is no way to know if you exist everywhere, because there might be places that exist that you don't know about, and therefore don't inhabit. For the sake of brevity everyone can connect those dots like we did in the last paragraph, and that means it comes to being present, a MGB is a limited being. There is also another problem that is connected to eternal existence that will be included down below. (There is also a little known Kant argument about the impossibility of omniconsciousness, which is tied to omnipresence, in that something that is everywhere cannot discern between itself and other objects because there are no "other objects". We will leave that for some other time though).

If a MGB is a limited being because it doesn't know all and can't be present everywhere, it isn't all powerful.

An eternal being cannot create a finite universe. Any eternal being would have to experience an infinite amount of existence before it reaches the place in its existence where it created a universe. It's not possible for any eternal being to get to that point however, so a finite universe could never get created. Something with no beginning or ending (a limitless existence) will not reach the moment that the universe was created. Some theists try a work around on this by claiming that an eternal being experiences all of its existence in the present tense. In other words it exists NOW at all points in its existence. If we take that idea and express it mathematically, we can say that 1 unit of existence (the NOW unit) out of an eternal existence would be 1/infinity. But 1/infinity is zero. All the other NOW moments would also be 1/infinity. Even with an infinite amount of them, the summation (because the eternal being experiences them all in the present tense) of all those NOWs equals zero. Basically, an eternal god wouldn't exist in that case. It can't experience all the NOWs in the present tense together, because NOW is an infinitely small amount of existence (basically zero). There is no eternal god in that scenario, so that work around is illogical.

So if an omni-everything god is not possible, what is? Some would say the MGB. But the MGB cannot meaningfully be imagined. It doesn't even meet the standard of fuzzy logic. An MGB would have limited knowledge, but how much? That's indeterminate, there is no way of knowing. An MGB would have limited presence, power, and existence as well, but again there's no way to know how much. It's all indeterminate. If something is indeterminate in logic we can't use just logic to determine if it is true or false. The ontological argument is illogical because it cannot make a determination about an indeterminate being.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I did ask though, you just told me to read it again. So are you going to explain yourself properly this time?

Reread it and understand it "properly this time".

Justified by using circular argument, doesn't count.

Red herrings. When you can't refute something, just throw around an alleged fallacy to distract us from that fact.

Since it is true that conceivable concepts are (must be) logical, then it follows that logical concepts are conceivable.

Yes, but you cannot use that as an argument to support that something is logical and conceivable, because it is circular. Why is this not registering?

Why is the fact that it was justified not registering to you? You apparently seek this "tiger jumping through the fiery loop" of a justification when that is simply not needed here.

Since I am about to give you the last word, I will say it one last time..

Concepts such as squared circles, married bachelors, and mathematical impossibilities cannot be conceived, because they are illogical...they can't happen in reality. Logical absurdities cannot exist in reality and cannot be conceived, making them impossible.

But on the contrast, logically coherent concepts CAN be conceived...making them possible (in some possible worlds).

That is about as good as it is gonna get....now of course, that may not be good enough for you...but hey, I've already gotta the W from you, so as of now; your opinion means nothing to me.

Of course, I can say that about benchwarmer too, but I am addressing you right now.

Well, you do you. I will keep pointing out that you have failed to justify the truth of the first premise.

And from my perspective, you've failed to refute the first premise of the MOA. So hey

You did that already, how did that help you?

Well, based on the fact that it gave me the W that I sought....I would say it helped me out a lot.

As I said, you don't need to "play it safe" when you have the truth on your side.

Yep, it's a habit of mine to deny trivial falsehoods.

Ever watch that show "Intervention"?

That's still not an answer to "what if it is true?"

Your rent is due, and you are very short on the money to pay it in full. This is like telling the landlord "what if I had the money to pay it."

LOL. Again, unwarranted hypothetical.

It also implies you are wrong, you said you would make a new thread, you've confirmed that you are still waiting, you most certainly have not been there nor done that.

Then I guess that would mean that "been there, done that" applies to, not an as of yet to be created thread, but on this thread...perhaps?

Now of course, you may not agree that it has been done, but at least acknowledge that that is what it applies to.

Cmon, do the right thing, for a change.

And yet there you were, going on about atheists imagining the God as support for your argument, around a week and a half ago, curious.

They are...and they do.

But you recall challenging me to prove that I can imagine a guy in the cloud, right?

Sure, but since it lacks the omnibutes of which the MGB in the MOA has...the entire mention of it is about as useless as a no-mouthed dog in a frisbee contest.

This would be equivalent to me opening up an apple shop...selling nothing but apples.

In fact, the name of the store is "Nothing but Apples".

And here you are, coming into the store...looking around...and saying "I see the apples, but....what about oranges?".

My response: "I am sure oranges make for great fruits...but that just isn't what is going in here."

Take that analogy and apply it to your mere mention of the bearded guy thing. It fits like a glove.

And you'd be just as wrong as you were the first time you said that. You used the fact that atheist can imagine God as support for your first premise, my bearded guy scenario countered that justification.

It wasn't relevant, yet, it "countered" my justification? Makes no sense.

Same advice as before: Then don't saying you've been there and done it when you in fact, haven't made the thread.

"The appetizer".

I did, still nothing.

Then maybe you need thicker glasses.

I can certainly try. You were looking at the wrong place, you don't see where the premise is valid, because validity does not apply to premises, it applies to the whole argument / syllogism. In the example I provided, the first premise is false, yet the syllogism is valid. If there is still any doubt, check out the explanation you provided just now:

"A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be deductively valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises are true."

My example syllogism guarantees the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises are true, hence valid.

Hmm. No explanation is given as to why the syllogism is valid, in light of a false premise. The idea is to use the inferred premises to give rise to the logical conclusion. This can't be done if the premise is false.

Yes, that's what "provided that the argument's premises are true" means, it means the premises are not required to be true (or false.) What do you think phrase "provided that" means? Why do you still think the premises must be true when the very sources you quote literally says otherwise?

Yeah, that is a hypothetical..."provided (if) the argument's premises are true". However, since the premises is false, it has the opposite effect of the premises being true...namely, an invalid argument.

But anyways, you can have the last word here. I will gladly take the dub. Your answer "I don't know" spoke volumes as to the strength of the MOA, and the weakness of your objections (with all due respect).

See ya around, amigo.

[We_Are_VENOM]

My apologies on replying a week after your post. Somehow I missed that you replied.

One flaw of this great forum is that sometimes, it fails to properly notify members of posts which were responded to.

I guess that's why they say; Everryyy roseeee, has its thornnnn.

Just like everryyyy night, has its dawwnnnn.

I'm sure you did mean it. Imagining something and being able to put it into words is the only requirement you listed. A square circle can be imagined, so can all powerful gods. Both make zero sense, but according to the Ontological that means that they are possible...hence the Ontological isn't logical at all.

That is where the contention lies, because I don't believe you can imagine a squared circle. This is a categorical mistake/fallacy....and anyone who claims to imagine such a thing is being disingenuous if not down right lying.

And if that is the level that you have to stoop too in order to give the MOA resistance, then it is clear that the implications of the MOA must be very powerful, indeed.

Let's go over it again then.

In post #135 you said: When we say God is all powerful (omnipotent), we simply mean that God can do all logical things (anything that is logically possible)

This is a change from the OP, but even William Lane Craig had to switch to the "logical" MGB because he realized that omni gods weren't possible.

No, he meant that illogical gods aren't possible. Obviously, when the MOA is given, it is the apologist presenting a logically sound/valid argument based on an omni-being that is within logic and reasoning.

So be it. However, the MGB is still illogical. No being can be omniscient, because it doesn't know what it doesn't know. Put another way, if there is knowledge that you are not aware of, then you don't know that knowledge AND you aren't aware that you don't know that knowledge. This is a necessary truth about knowledge.

Or, we can put it this way...is it possible for a omniscient being to not know the truth value or a proposition?

If the answer is yes, then the being is not omniscient. Then I will ask you which proposition doesn't the omniscient being know the truth value of. Obviously, you wouldn't know the answer to this question, but lets say you knew the answer...and you provided me the answer.

Then I will ask you, how can an omniscient being not know the answer to this? It will be at the point that I hope you realize that if the omniscient being is truly omniscient, then it is necessary for it to know the answer.

If you answer no, then, my point is proven.

So either way...the dub is mines.

There is no logical way to know that you know everything. This alone is an unknown, making omniscience impossible. To further it, any being cannot know how MUCH it doesn't know. Not only does it not know what it doesn't know, it doesn't know how much it doesn't know. When it comes to knowledge, a MGB is a limited being.

This is equivalent to the loaded question fallacy. "How long have you been beating your wife", the question is already loaded with the assumption that there was a duration of time that I have been beating my wife.

But if I never beat my wife, the question is meaningless.

Same thing going on here. To even presume that being X has a measurable amount of ignorance in its knowledge, has no bearing a presumed being that has no amount of ignorance in its knowledge.

So in essence, you have to prove why it is impossible for any being to possess omniscience..and I don't think you can do that.

Omnipresence is the exact same problem. You can't know what you don't know. There is no way to know if you exist everywhere, because there might be places that exist that you don't know about, and therefore don't inhabit.

I will ask the same question here as I did above; why wouldn't an omniscient being know about all possible habitats?

For the sake of brevity everyone can connect those dots like we did in the last paragraph, and that means it comes to being present, a MGB is a limited being. There is also another problem that is connected to eternal existence that will be included down below. (There is also a little known Kant argument about the impossibility of omniconsciousness, which is tied to omnipresence, in that something that is everywhere cannot discern between itself and other objects because there are no "other objects". We will leave that for some other time though).

If a MGB is a limited being because it doesn't know all and can't be present everywhere, it isn't all powerful.

You are using weak refutations and having them branch off into other weak refutations.

An eternal being cannot create a finite universe. Any eternal being would have to experience an infinite amount of existence before it reaches the place in its existence where it created a universe. It's not possible for any eternal being to get to that point however, so a finite universe could never get created. Something with no beginning or ending (a limitless existence) will not reach the moment that the universe was created.

LOL!!! So basically, you are taking my argument against infinite regression (that I made in another thread), and using it to apply to God.

Wow.

I will respond to this in the same way I did elsewhere. When you say "an infinite amount of existence", I assume you mean an "infinite amount of time".

But as I stated elsewhere, when we say God is "infinite", we are not saying God is infinite in terms of quantity, but rather, God is infinite in terms of quality.

However, you are on to something here, because your argumentation can certainly be applied to the universe (all physical reality) as a whole, which IS in fact infinite in terms of infinite duration in time.

Some theists try a work around on this by claiming that an eternal being experiences all of its existence in the present tense. In other words it exists NOW at all points in its existence. If we take that idea and express it mathematically, we can say that 1 unit of existence (the NOW unit) out of an eternal existence would be 1/infinity. But 1/infinity is zero. All the other NOW moments would also be 1/infinity. Even with an infinite amount of them, the summation (because the eternal being experiences them all in the present tense) of all those NOWs equals zero. Basically, an eternal god wouldn't exist in that case. It can't experience all the NOWs in the present tense together, because NOW is an infinitely small amount of existence (basically zero). There is no eternal god in that scenario, so that work around is illogical.

Well, here is one thing that is impossible; infinite regression. It is just impossible in every sense of the word "impossible".

That being said, God himself could not even existence in infinite duration, for the very reasons you mentioned.

Now, it is here that things get a little shaky, even for me. So, how can this be resolved?

Well, the only way it can be resolved is if God was in an stationary state of existence for eternity..without having every moved an inch...with an eternal will to create the universe had some point.

Then, some 14.7 billion years ago, God moved when it began to create the universe, thus; the beginning of time.

This is the only way out can see "out" of the problem of infinite regression. I am open to other ideas...but infinite regression, never.

So if an omni-everything god is not possible, what is? Some would say the MGB. But the MGB cannot meaningfully be imagined. It doesn't even meet the standard of fuzzy logic. An MGB would have limited knowledge, but how much? That's indeterminate, there is no way of knowing. An MGB would have limited presence, power, and existence as well, but again there's no way to know how much. It's all indeterminate. If something is indeterminate in logic we can't use just logic to determine if it is true or false. The ontological argument is illogical because it cannot make a determination about an indeterminate being.

Again, you are making this case based on a non sequitur. But props to you for actually dealing with the meat and potatoes of the argument, which is more than what I can say about others.

[benchwarmer]

I will gladly take the dub.

You can proclaim you've 'taken the dub' all you want. It seems quite odd to do so, but you do you. Most of us prefer to let readers decide for themselves who has made interesting points or persuasive arguments. Tooting your own horn seems DUBious.

[We_Are_VENOM]

That's because we live in this world. I thought we were talking about 'possible' worlds. ?? That is the entire point of the MOA isn't it? Are you suggesting I think 2 + 2 will ever not equal 4 in our world? If so, you are not following along very well.

Umm, the whole "bank account" thing. Which world do you think I was talking about?

I know, and you couldn't draw one when asked.

Right, and I admitted that I can't and stated why I can't. Can you do the same?

Then we can't know based on your goal post moving whether you have actually imagined it or not. You can't ask others to prove their imaginings and then turn around and complain when they ask you to do the same.

Ok...so let me ask you this...do minds exist? Yes or no?

If yes; can you draw one for me.

If no; (just say yes).

Just like we asked you to do and then you failed.

Please answer question above

I already drew the one sided stick and you didn't like it. Not my problem anymore.

You did? How long was the stick?

You mean other people showing that you are committing multiple logical fallacies and goal post moving? It's uncomfortable isn't it?

No, but again, more like..

2+2=96

"I can draw a one-sided stick"

"Yay, for squared circles"

Those are the levels that are stooped to. Anything but the "G" word.

Thank MGB! The debate doesn't advance when you simply stamp your feet and don't actually address counter arguments.

I addressed them, refuted them, and Hulkamania leg-dropped them.

Just go use the search function. You didn't like it.

Time wasted.

LOL if you like, but not understanding the example is not helping your case. I already explained only the pixies can add to 4 and they like it like that. So much so no one else may do so. In this world, the people don't know about the pixies or how many of them there are. THEY can't make 2 + 2 = 4.

They can only guess and make silly, non observational arguments about why this is so. The pixies giggle every time someone OTHER than them attempts to add 2 + 2 or any other combination that would equal 4. It's not hard to imagine, I just did it. That's how I managed to write this text. So the people in this imagining can only make 2 + 2 = 96.

"Anything, no matter how absurd, is STILL a better option that the G word". You can have the last word here.

No more wasted time on Alice and Wonderland make beliefs involving pixies and carrying on.

[benchwarmer]

Ok...so let me ask you this...do minds exist? Yes or no?

If yes; can you draw one for me.

If no; (just say yes).

Wow, only willing to accept one answer and don't want to be inconvenienced by something else?

First, how do you define 'mind'? I define it as the thoughts I have which are the product of my brain cells transferring signals to one another. In other words, my mind is the result of the network in my brain.

I'm horrible at art, but hopefully showing 'a' drawing of a brain rather than 'my' drawing of a brain will do:



As for the mind in the brain, here is a drawing of a network i.e. the physical system that produces our thoughts:



Or the standard thought bubble which is a representation (like all drawing are) of thoughts:

Please answer question above

Done, can you stop moving goal posts now and at least follow your own requests?

Please draw for us an MGB to prove you can imagine one. Remember this is not our rule, but YOUR rule. Oh wait, you've already admitted that you can't, so I guess you haven't imagined one.

Seems like the debate is over based on your own ruleset.

I already drew the one sided stick and you didn't like it. Not my problem anymore.

You did? How long was the stick?

How many times are you going to move the goal posts here? You asked me to draw something. I did. You realize this refutes your premise, so you pick up the goal posts and move them again.

Tell you what, I will tell you how long the one sided stick is after you tell me how long your MGB is. Deal? I mean, you already admitted you can't draw one so you are already one goal post move behind here. Now you are going to be 2 steps behind unless you can answer this one.

No, but again, more like..

2+2=96

"I can draw a one-sided stick"

"Yay, for squared circles"

Those are the levels that are stooped to. Anything but the "G" word.

No one's stooping, we are simply doing as you asked. When we can show our work and thus tank your premise you either move the goal posts again or complain we don't want to talk about the "G" word. I'm more than happy to talk about the "G" word, what in the world do you think this entire site is about?

Thank MGB! The debate doesn't advance when you simply stamp your feet and don't actually address counter arguments.

I addressed them, refuted them, and Hulkamania leg-dropped them.

Only in your imagination it seems. That does tie nicely in with the theme of this debate though.

Just go use the search function. You didn't like it.

Time wasted.

Then why did you ask about it again? If you are not willing to do your own homework, the rest of us aren't going to keep doing it for you.

LOL if you like, but not understanding the example is not helping your case. I already explained only the pixies can add to 4 and they like it like that. So much so no one else may do so. In this world, the people don't know about the pixies or how many of them there are. THEY can't make 2 + 2 = 4.

They can only guess and make silly, non observational arguments about why this is so. The pixies giggle every time someone OTHER than them attempts to add 2 + 2 or any other combination that would equal 4. It's not hard to imagine, I just did it. That's how I managed to write this text. So the people in this imagining can only make 2 + 2 = 96.

"Anything, no matter how absurd, is STILL a better option that the G word". You can have the last word here.

No more wasted time on Alice and Wonderland make beliefs involving pixies and carrying on.

So you are now admitting that we did "make believe" these things like pixies, etc? Which is it? We imagined things or we didn't? Either way, your line of argument is sunk.

[Bust Nak]

Reread it and understand it "properly this time".

The presumption that I did not read it properly last time, is false.

Red herrings. When you can't refute something, just throw around an alleged fallacy to distract us from that fact.

That's why I always go the extra mile to prove my allegations to be true.

Why is the fact that it was justified not registering to you?

Because it is not actually a fact, but an example of circular reasoning: A->B, B->C and C->A does not prove A, B or C.

Concepts such as squared circles, married bachelors, and mathematical impossibilities cannot be conceived, because they are illogical...they can't happen in reality. Logical absurdities cannot exist in reality and cannot be conceived, making them impossible.

But on the contrast, logically coherent concepts CAN be conceived...making them possible (in some possible worlds).

That is about as good as it is gonna get...

That much is simple, but that doesn't prove that the MGB can be conceived. "As good as it is gonna get" isn't good enough.

And from my perspective, you've failed to refute the first premise of the MOA. So hey

Like I said: you do you.

As I said, you don't need to "play it safe" when you have the truth on your side.

Shame about the attempt at proving that you do have the truth on your side though.

Ever watch that show "Intervention"?

No, I don't know what that is.

Your rent is due, and you are very short on the money to pay it in full. This is like telling the landlord "what if I had the money to pay it."

That's still not an answer to "what if" my question. So much for not needing to "play it safe" when you can't answer a simple what if.

Then I guess that would mean that "been there, done that" applies to, not an as of yet to be created thread, but on this thread...perhaps?

Well, what ever you had in mind, that's not what you said, your "been there, done that" was a response to my challenge to your yet to be created thread.

They are...and they do.

Okay?

Sure, but since it lacks the omnibutes of which the MGB in the MOA has...the entire mention of it is about as useless as a no-mouthed dog in a frisbee contest.

Hey, you challenged me to prove it, the least you can do is acknowledge that your challenge was met.

It wasn't relevant, yet, it "countered" my justification? Makes no sense.

Nah, it was relevant AND it counted your justification.

"The appetizer".

Still the same advice as before: Then don't saying you've been there and done it when you in fact, haven't made the thread.

Then maybe you need thicker glasses.

Maybe you need to actually make counter arguments instead of trash talk.

Hmm. No explanation is given as to why the syllogism is valid, in light of a false premise.

Talk about needing thicker glasses. The explanation was right there in the bit you quoted, repeated here for your convivence: My example syllogism guarantees the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises are true.

The idea is to use the inferred premises to give rise to the logical conclusion. This can't be done if the premise is false.

Why not?! Logical isn't the same thing as true.

Yeah, that is a hypothetical..."provided (if) the argument's premises are true".

Exactly. We are taking about a hypothetical here, whether the premise are true or not is irrelevant when we are dealing with a hypothetical situation. It's that hard to understand.

But anyways, you can have the last word here. I will gladly take the dub. Your answer "I don't know" spoke volumes as to the strength of the MOA, and the weakness of your objections (with all due respect).

Look here, you can't even get what makes an argument valid, you have zero room for trash talk.