One of the best arguments for God

[AquinasForGod]

One of the best arguments for God is the response to the modal ontological argument.

To read my full argument, go here - https://www.freelymeditate.com/single-p ... ts-for-god

And to read about ontological arguments and the modal ontological argument go to the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto ... n%20alone.

Question for Debate: Can atheists prove God is impossible?

The reason that is the question for debate is because that is the counter to Plantinga's ontological argument. If you read the link to the SFP, provided above, you will notice that his ontological argument is valid. This means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Thus to show the argument is not sound, you must show one of the premises are untrue. The only premise that you can really do that with is the first premise, which is that God is possible.

You could reject modal logic, I suppose, but that doesn't seem reasonable.

Also, the so-called defeater to this argument is why this argument is so good. It runs the argument in reverse, called a symmetry breaker. However, to run this argument in reverse is simply to state that God is impossible. Who argues that? Thus my question for debate. Can you argue that God is impossible?

If you wish to use the so-caleld symmetry breaker to the modal ontological argument to claim you defeated the argument, then you must defend the first premise, which is that God cannot exist in any possible world, yet that seems wrong. Why would God be impossible?

If you cannot defend the first premise, then you haven't defeated the argument. In other words, if you agree that God is possible, then Plantinga's argument goes through. It is sound and thus God is true.

In other words, you have to claim Plantinga's first premise is not true, which states that God is possible. If that premise is false, then you are saying God is impossible.

His argument is so powerful because it only leaves you with a few options.

1. God exists.
2. God is impossible, and cannot possibly exist. (Good luck trying to argue that. )
3. Reject modal logic.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #39]

Agnostic Atheist: I am an agnostic and an atheist too

Agnostic Neutral:

Agnostic Atheist: - the distinction you make is no difference.

Agnostic Neutral: No difference as in what? That you agree with my position?

Agnostic Atheist: Like making a distinction between a palaeontologist and a scientist.

Agnostic Neutral: A palaeontologist is different from a cosmologist, yet both are scientists.

Agnostic Atheist: And if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose I'd say: 'No, I will not say that we exist within a creation, because I don't know whether it was created or had some other origin'.

Agnostic Neutral:

Agnostic Atheist: I would rather say that 'we exist within an existing (and real) Cosmos.' as that appears to avoid the main logical pitfalls.

Agnostic Neutral: If avoidance is your thing, and you imagine pitfalls, okay...

Agnostic Atheist: And that I'd say out of sheer preference for logical clarity, even if I wan not suspicious of your ongoing effort to get me to say something so eminently quotemineable as 'we exist within a creation'.

Agnostic Neutral: Well I know that as an agnostic, going along with the idea that I exist within a creation doesn't appear to have had any ill affect on me as a personality.
Perhaps your avoidance has something to do with some bias derived from atheism?

I don't see how it should though, because an atheist should be able to go along with the idea that they exist within a creation. They don't have to believe it to be the case, or lack belief that it is the case.

[TRANSPONDER]

Let's say it's out of consideration for our theist friends; I should hate to inadvertently mislead them into thinking that I was saying that I accepted that we were an act of (intelligent) creation. So I "avoid" misleading them.

[William]

Let's say it's out of consideration for our theist friends; I should hate to inadvertently mislead them into thinking that I was saying that I accepted that we were an act of (intelligent) creation. So I "avoid" misleading them.

That could be a whole other thread for discussion.

[Purple Knight]

Also, the so-called defeater to this argument is why this argument is so good. It runs the argument in reverse, called a symmetry breaker. However, to run this argument in reverse is simply to state that God is impossible. Who argues that? Thus my question for debate. Can you argue that God is impossible?

If you wish to use the so-caleld symmetry breaker to the modal ontological argument to claim you defeated the argument, then you must defend the first premise, which is that God cannot exist in any possible world, yet that seems wrong. Why would God be impossible?

Because he's defined as all-powerful and negatives are possibilities too. So if everything is possible somewhere, if everything ultimately happens, then yes to Aslan but only in Narnia. And this ain't Narnia.

Part of every possible thing happening is that you get some worlds where his power can't reach. Part of yes to every possible thing, is yes to a dimension without God. That means his power doesn't reach there.

Yes to everything also means some things won't happen even if only so other things can. There's a dimension somewhere that we didn't get kicked out of Eden. There are possibilities where there wasn't an Eden. There are possibilities where there isn't a god.

Now if you don't define God as a being whose power reaches other possibilities than his own, sure, yes to God. Somewhere. But not necessarily here. But if you do need God to transcend possibilities then no, because if he can do everything then some things don't happen. A good example I can think of is, souls don't disappear - not in any dimension. He wouldn't let that happen. But if that's true then no longer yes to everything and the argument that everything happens somewhere is kaput.

This is basically how I can prove that the "maximally great" - the maximum of greatness a being can have - is capped at affecting its own dimension. It's because if it is so great that it can affect other dimensions, it ruins the concept of a multiverse where everything possible happens because it stops some things from happening.

[TRANSPONDER]

Also, the so-called defeater to this argument is why this argument is so good. It runs the argument in reverse, called a symmetry breaker. However, to run this argument in reverse is simply to state that God is impossible. Who argues that? Thus my question for debate. Can you argue that God is impossible?

If you wish to use the so-caleld symmetry breaker to the modal ontological argument to claim you defeated the argument, then you must defend the first premise, which is that God cannot exist in any possible world, yet that seems wrong. Why would God be impossible?

Because he's defined as all-powerful and negatives are possibilities too. So if everything is possible somewhere, if everything ultimately happens, then yes to Aslan but only in Narnia. And this ain't Narnia.

Part of every possible thing happening is that you get some worlds where his power can't reach. Part of yes to every possible thing, is yes to a dimension without God. That means his power doesn't reach there.

Yes to everything also means some things won't happen even if only so other things can. There's a dimension somewhere that we didn't get kicked out of Eden. There are possibilities where there wasn't an Eden. There are possibilities where there isn't a god.

Now if you don't define God as a being whose power reaches other possibilities than his own, sure, yes to God. Somewhere. But not necessarily here. But if you do need God to transcend possibilities then no, because if he can do everything then some things don't happen. A good example I can think of is, souls don't disappear - not in any dimension. He wouldn't let that happen. But if that's true then no longer yes to everything and the argument that everything happens somewhere is kaput.

This is basically how I can prove that the "maximally great" - the maximum of greatness a being can have - is capped at affecting its own dimension. It's because if it is so great that it can affect other dimensions, it ruins the concept of a multiverse where everything possible happens because it stops some things from happening.

Corrr.. That's some deep thinking. And I said that I'm no philosopher and have mentioned a couple of times that I'm not especially bright (and so anyone with a few brain - cells can do anything I've done here, or better). But the video I posted made an interesting point, that an entity that is greater than anything (and if it isn't, there is one greater than that) has to appear in any universe it's (logically) possible for it to appear in, so Aslan, if it existed in Narnia, should exist everywhere. So we get the absurd situation where any god we can imagine must exist and in all possible universes. And the Axiom is that a logical construct that gives an absurd answer requires that the premise be checked and the premise is flawed, as Anselm found, but trued to waffle his way out of it with the result that it just kicked the absurdity down the road, or rather, applied it to a larger universe.

It didn't appear to deal with your interesting 'cap'. Though it did distinguish between the logically possible and not (which I why I never twit God for not being able to make a squared circle. I only expect God to do the logically possible, which is why I can't believe the God depicted in the Bible, as the Christian god surely had the ability to do it better and one that didn't was a 'capped' god that was merely an ET alien trying to dupe us.

[Purple Knight]

Corrr.. That's some deep thinking. And I said that I'm no philosopher and have mentioned a couple of times that I'm not especially bright (and so anyone with a few brain - cells can do anything I've done here, or better). But the video I posted made an interesting point, that an entity that is greater than anything (and if it isn't, there is one greater than that) has to appear in any universe it's (logically) possible for it to appear in, so Aslan, if it existed in Narnia, should exist everywhere. So we get the absurd situation where any god we can imagine must exist and in all possible universes.

That's not exactly how I did it but it's reducing it to the same absurdity. You can't have a multiverse where everything logically possible happens in some possibility if you're going to have God break the barriers and exist in every possibility, because everywhere he exists is now one possibility. There's a possibility somewhere that he didn't do that, otherwise it breaks the premise this multiverse thinking is founded upon.

And saying "there's a possibility he didn't" isn't the same as asking him to make a square circle or asking him to make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it.

Everything possible happens. That means I die and my soul disappears. That in turn means there's no God preserving that soul in whichever reality that happened in. That might be this universe which means that yes, God exists somewhere, but not here.

I actually think my way is better because you could say that, for example, Aslan has a huge, shaggy mane, and that's kind of ugly, so he's not maximally great. Cats are indeed maximally great, but the perfect cat is clearly an Oriental Shorthair so he'd be that. So you would weed out gods with imperfections like cruelty, lesser power (a god in a pantheon canonically described to be of lesser power, for example) until you had a great, golden Oriental Shorthair because cats are inarguably the perfect beings and that is the perfect cat. And really, everything but cat is a bit subjective. You might even say cruelty is greater than kindness or deceptiveness and cleverness are greater than honesty, which is for fools who can't lie very well. If we're going to say strength is better than weakness, I don't see why not; both strength and deceptiveness are about overcoming the other guy. Both are about who would win in a fight, and honesty doesn't win against clever deception.

[TRANSPONDER]

Corrr.. That's some deep thinking. And I said that I'm no philosopher and have mentioned a couple of times that I'm not especially bright (and so anyone with a few brain - cells can do anything I've done here, or better). But the video I posted made an interesting point, that an entity that is greater than anything (and if it isn't, there is one greater than that) has to appear in any universe it's (logically) possible for it to appear in, so Aslan, if it existed in Narnia, should exist everywhere. So we get the absurd situation where any god we can imagine must exist and in all possible universes.

That's not exactly how I did it but it's reducing it to the same absurdity. You can't have a multiverse where everything logically possible happens in some possibility if you're going to have God break the barriers and exist in every possibility, because everywhere he exists is now one possibility. There's a possibility somewhere that he didn't do that, otherwise it breaks the premise this multiverse thinking is founded upon.

And saying "there's a possibility he didn't" isn't the same as asking him to make a square circle or asking him to make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it.

Everything possible happens. That means I die and my soul disappears. That in turn means there's no God preserving that soul in whichever reality that happened in. That might be this universe which means that yes, God exists somewhere, but not here.

I actually think my way is better because you could say that, for example, Aslan has a huge, shaggy mane, and that's kind of ugly, so he's not maximally great. Cats are indeed maximally great, but the perfect cat is clearly an Oriental Shorthair so he'd be that. So you would weed out gods with imperfections like cruelty, lesser power (a god in a pantheon canonically described to be of lesser power, for example) until you had a great, golden Oriental Shorthair because cats are inarguably the perfect beings and that is the perfect cat. And really, everything but cat is a bit subjective. You might even say cruelty is greater than kindness or deceptiveness and cleverness are greater than honesty, which is for fools who can't lie very well. If we're going to say strength is better than weakness, I don't see why not; both strength and deceptiveness are about overcoming the other guy. Both are about who would win in a fight, and honesty doesn't win against clever deception.

So one could say that Aslan cannot exist because he isn't perfect, but a perfect Aslan (and a perfect Santa or Pizza or indeed God, Shiva and Ahura Mazda) must exist because all must have maximally greater versions of themselves, though that is tending towards all those being inadequate because their human nature precludes anything being Them could not ever be maximally perfect because of this 'cap' as you say, so the only a being or entity not having any imperfect characteristics to limit what a maximally great version of itself could be would be the only one that could be God and would have to exist in all multiverses. I suspect the Believers will like that, but the problem would be that such a god could not have the humanlike characteristics that Biblegod has, or any other gods, for that matter. So, even if that idea works, it would seem that it cannot be the god of the Bible. Or indeed any entity that creates for a reason, which would imply humanlike desire to do a thing for some reason, let alone likes and dislikes. While this seems to be an Ontological argument for a god, its' nature seems to turn it into an ontological argument for natural physical laws without a plan, or likes or dislikes.

Or am I talking a lot of nonsense?

[Purple Knight]

So one could say that Aslan cannot exist because he isn't perfect,

Well, because he's not perfect, he is not that maximally great being. He's close because he's a cat, but he is still inadequate because he is not an Oriental Shorthair. He can exist in his own universe, and in fact he does, and if every possibility is true somewhere, fine, he exists somewhere. I have no problem with Narnia being real because everything possible is real. This is actually what I believe because I think it's the default you have to go with when you don't understand fully what is possible and what isn't.

What does Aslan existing in Narnia mean for me in my universe? Nothing, because he can't reach. If things cross universes then every possibility is no longer true which is what the whole god-must-exist-because-every possibility-is-true argument is founded on. At very least (see my response to William) when he reaches through he creates another universe into which he did not reach because every possible thing is true and that includes him not reaching through.

And that might be this universe: The universe of maximum mundaneness which nobody ever tampered with, must exist, because every possible universe exists.

but a perfect Aslan (and a perfect Santa or Pizza or indeed God, Shiva and Ahura Mazda) must exist because all must have maximally greater versions of themselves, though that is tending towards all those being inadequate because their human nature precludes anything being Them could not ever be maximally perfect because of this 'cap' as you say, so the only a being or entity not having any imperfect characteristics to limit what a maximally great version of itself could be would be the only one that could be God and would have to exist in all multiverses.

Yes and you're right that monotheist believers will like this part, because as you eliminate Santa's negative traits (like his big, gross homeless person beard), and Aslan's negative traits, and Shiva's negative traits, they all become one perfect great golden Oriental Shorthair and that's the perfect being and that's the singular god. This ontological argument has nothing to do with the Bible and in fact goes against a Bible God for the reasons you mentioned. But if they want to believe in the perfect being, sure.

The big problem comes out when they say this is the universe with that perfect being. If he can cross universes it ruins the assumption that everything possible happens. You know, the assumption they used to prove that god happens. God happens, and he crosses universes, and then he ruins the fact that they're separate in which case everything no longer happens in its own separate little bubble. If beings can cross universes all I have to do to pin this coffin down is say that the maximally great being did happen, did cross universes, didn't like theists, and killed all their gods, then killed himself because he too was a god.

The maximally great being... died. Everything possible happens so that happened. You saying he can't die? If he can he will eventually volunteer to. If he can't he ain't perfect. And if there were more than one of those suckers you have to either 1) go back to they aren't popping bubbles or 2) say he isn't maximally great because there are multiples.

Do you see why I can do this? Because once there are beings that can cross universes, you no longer have universes where every possibility happens. Those bubbles are poppable. So I can construct the thing that popped them as a destroyer of gods and say there can't be gods, just the same as theists would construct the bubble popper as something nice that stays around and saves your soul. (What this really means is that there can't be a bubble popper, or at very least, if he pops a bubble, there must be an identical bubble he did not pop.)

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #208]

I think that how some folk see and hear things that most other folk do not, allows me to also understand how there may be an infinity of universes all superimposed upon each other and it depends upon what outfit consciousness wears as to what experiences said consciousness will have.
Such things as hallucinations, hearing voices, seeing colors, having drug trips, fasting in the desert, et al could all be ways in which the body-set which enables us to experience this universe, is tampered with in some way - the brain of the body-set then engages with alternat realities normally hidden from said brains and accompanying consciousnesses detection...

This could be, but every time you tamper in another universe, if every possibility exists, you generate two more identical universes (or, you could say, they always existed) where tampering did not occur. If Universe A and Universe B interact, there must also be a Universe C and a Universe D that are identical to A and B, only they did not interact.

There also must be a universe of maximum mundaneness that never interacted with any other universe, because everything possible happens. And I'm replying to this in the topic where this discussion is going on about the ontological argument because it absolutely applies.

[William]

Re: How is there reality without God?

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #208]

I think that how some folk see and hear things that most other folk do not, allows me to also understand how there may be an infinity of universes all superimposed upon each other and it depends upon what outfit consciousness wears as to what experiences said consciousness will have.
Such things as hallucinations, hearing voices, seeing colors, having drug trips, fasting in the desert, et al could all be ways in which the body-set which enables us to experience this universe, is tampered with in some way - the brain of the body-set then engages with alternat realities normally hidden from said brains and accompanying consciousnesses detection...

This could be, but every time you tamper in another universe, if every possibility exists, you generate two more identical universes (or, you could say, they always existed) where tampering did not occur. If Universe A and Universe B interact, there must also be a Universe C and a Universe D that are identical to A and B, only they did not interact.

Not sure why you are arguing that, if all possible universes exist - what is the 'tampering' aspect? Observing? Interacting? Both?

There also must be a universe of maximum mundaneness that never interacted with any other universe, because everything possible happens. And I'm replying to this in the topic where this discussion is going on about the ontological argument because it absolutely applies.

My proposal isn't saying that the universes are interacting with each other, but rather - consciousness interacts within them in different ways which require some type of body set for this to be done in a way in which the consciousness can perceive and experience one aspect
of the whole, and the whole are all the universes together...thus the universe we are currently experiencing is an aspect [one of the superimposing's] of that Whole Universe which is the sum total of all universes.

One could argue from this model, that a mind/consciousness could experience the Whole Universe as it is, without the separation which occurs with the body-sets which allow one to experience these separately.

[TRANSPONDER]

So one could say that Aslan cannot exist because he isn't perfect,

Well, because he's not perfect, he is not that maximally great being. He's close because he's a cat, but he is still inadequate because he is not an Oriental Shorthair. He can exist in his own universe, and in fact he does, and if every possibility is true somewhere, fine, he exists somewhere. I have no problem with Narnia being real because everything possible is real. This is actually what I believe because I think it's the default you have to go with when you don't understand fully what is possible and what isn't.

What does Aslan existing in Narnia mean for me in my universe? Nothing, because he can't reach. If things cross universes then every possibility is no longer true which is what the whole god-must-exist-because-every possibility-is-true argument is founded on. At very least (see my response to William) when he reaches through he creates another universe into which he did not reach because every possible thing is true and that includes him not reaching through.

And that might be this universe: The universe of maximum mundaneness which nobody ever tampered with, must exist, because every possible universe exists.

but a perfect Aslan (and a perfect Santa or Pizza or indeed God, Shiva and Ahura Mazda) must exist because all must have maximally greater versions of themselves, though that is tending towards all those being inadequate because their human nature precludes anything being Them could not ever be maximally perfect because of this 'cap' as you say, so the only a being or entity not having any imperfect characteristics to limit what a maximally great version of itself could be would be the only one that could be God and would have to exist in all multiverses.

Yes and you're right that monotheist believers will like this part, because as you eliminate Santa's negative traits (like his big, gross homeless person beard), and Aslan's negative traits, and Shiva's negative traits, they all become one perfect great golden Oriental Shorthair and that's the perfect being and that's the singular god. This ontological argument has nothing to do with the Bible and in fact goes against a Bible God for the reasons you mentioned. But if they want to believe in the perfect being, sure.

The big problem comes out when they say this is the universe with that perfect being. If he can cross universes it ruins the assumption that everything possible happens. You know, the assumption they used to prove that god happens. God happens, and he crosses universes, and then he ruins the fact that they're separate in which case everything no longer happens in its own separate little bubble. If beings can cross universes all I have to do to pin this coffin down is say that the maximally great being did happen, did cross universes, didn't like theists, and killed all their gods, then killed himself because he too was a god.

The maximally great being... died. Everything possible happens so that happened. You saying he can't die? If he can he will eventually volunteer to. If he can't he ain't perfect. And if there were more than one of those suckers you have to either 1) go back to they aren't popping bubbles or 2) say he isn't maximally great because there are multiples.

Do you see why I can do this? Because once there are beings that can cross universes, you no longer have universes where every possibility happens. Those bubbles are poppable. So I can construct the thing that popped them as a destroyer of gods and say there can't be gods, just the same as theists would construct the bubble popper as something nice that stays around and saves your soul. (What this really means is that there can't be a bubble popper, or at very least, if he pops a bubble, there must be an identical bubble he did not pop.)

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #208]

I think that how some folk see and hear things that most other folk do not, allows me to also understand how there may be an infinity of universes all superimposed upon each other and it depends upon what outfit consciousness wears as to what experiences said consciousness will have.
Such things as hallucinations, hearing voices, seeing colors, having drug trips, fasting in the desert, et al could all be ways in which the body-set which enables us to experience this universe, is tampered with in some way - the brain of the body-set then engages with alternat realities normally hidden from said brains and accompanying consciousnesses detection...

This could be, but every time you tamper in another universe, if every possibility exists, you generate two more identical universes (or, you could say, they always existed) where tampering did not occur. If Universe A and Universe B interact, there must also be a Universe C and a Universe D that are identical to A and B, only they did not interact.

There also must be a universe of maximum mundaneness that never interacted with any other universe, because everything possible happens. And I'm replying to this in the topic where this discussion is going on about the ontological argument because it absolutely applies.

Yes, so the multiverses (should they be real) have to be limited and not 'perfect' as they have the limiter of not interacting with the other. The Perfection' is something that encompasses the, (the wider cosmos) and is Anselm being kicked down the road (I'd have loved to see that) so that multiverses which are imperfect are superseded by 'God' which encompasses all of those can (and must) interact with them all. Or it is 'capped', limited, not perfect or maximally great and needs a thing that is.

And one could also say that the Maximus greatness has to reach a level of perfection that it has no earthly ties or limits that will leave Aslan, Santa, Pizzas and any religious god behind.If it is unlimited then if possible inb one universe, it is possible in all, it does not die in all universes as that is a limit. Eternal life is more of a perfection. It looks to me like death is a mortal limiter or cap, like Aslan not being able to outrun a bullet, unless it became magical and we had to leave the Big Cat behind. So the limiter of death has to be left behind.

So again, I am seeing that the only thing to answer Anselm's proposal is no manmade god but the 'God' that physicists refer to. Natural physical laws, actual reality and a 'universe' (Cosmos) that does what it does with no plan, need or desire and does not care whether humans exist or not. Which is what secularists have been saying all along. Can it be that the Ontological argument is actually one that validates secularist materialism?