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?

[Kenisaw]

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.

That's the best you can do, eh? You create definitions that obliterate your own premise, and that's the reply you muster. Your premise is rejected.

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.

You keep missing the bigger argument. If your MGB exists everywhere and is perfect, than the creation of an imperfect car within it's existence means it is no longer perfect. Just changing anything in it's perfect existence changes the parameters of its existence, and therefore it can no longer be perfect.

Of course you'd think a perfect being could at least have free will, which your MGB doesn't by your own definitions. Your premise is rejected.

, 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?

Technically the absence of good is just the absence of good. It doesn't mean evil is present. Sounds like nothing more than a neutral state to me. But regardless...

You forget the big picture again. Humans can't have free will, and your own god creature doesn't have free will. A necessary MGB makes free will necessarily impossible.

Since I am rejecting the idea of your flavor of god, that must mean I have free will, realistic proof that there is no MGB.

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.

And you would have seen my reply, which might even be quoted below...

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.

Any standard is inherently subjective. Even if there is a god creature, and that god creature has deemed some things good and other things bad, that being is placing it's own values on those things. That is still subjective. I agree that there is no objective moral values in atheism, but there isn't any such thing in the cultist world either.

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.

None. You can't have free human beings in a world where an MGB exists, as I pointed out above. Even if you could, there still wouldn't be such a thing as objective morality, and therefore no guarantee of evil unless someone defines something subjectively as such...

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.

Where I had focused on your switching of the word possible for necessary. Since you wouldn't ever answer the question of why your MGB had to be necessary, I went another route, and debated your omni statements.

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.

Since you wrote that, a KCA thread was started, and your beloved KCA is getting pounded. But you can avoid this logical impossibility for now if you want, because it will still remain a logical impossibility in the KCA. Where we talk about it doesn't change that fact.

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.

If the refutations are so bad why haven't you been able to come up with a plausible explanation that rids us of the contradictions? Your MGB is logically impossible, which makes P1 thoroughly and totally rejected...

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.

Hey, you believe in baseless supernatural worlds, so I figured I should cover my bases...

There is zero evidence that there is anything beyond that.

There is. KCA.

Getting trashed as we speak...

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".

Doesn't work though. You can't prove a negative. You should know this if you understand logic as you claim. The only thing you can do is prove something does exist. You seem to think you have something, so put it on the table and let's see what you've got. Otherwise there is no reason to consider the baseless claim of the supernatural as a plausible explanation for anything...

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.

ROFL. Science has already shown that the universe is just nothing broken up into pieces. My computer is just part of nothing. I've explained this before.

But even if science hadn't shown that the universe adds up to nothing, you are again using false logic. You are claiming that science cannot explain the origins of it's own domain when you have no basis for that claim. I think I know the answer you will give, but what allows you to say with authority what the limits are of what science can and can't do?

P1 is defeated, so P2 doesn't matter.

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

No, it's not, for the myriad of impossible contradictions already mentioned to you that you haven't been able to resolve.

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.

Conceiving something and doing something are not the same thing. You conceived of an all knowing and all powerful god creature too (or at least got it from the Bible), and that clearly isn't possible either. Again I point all this out to you...

Your last sentence is interesting though. Your MGB supposedly can't lie. If it can't lie than lying can't be done, eh, because if the MGB can't do it then it can't be done? I love the logical contradictions your MGB presents...

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.

Then your MGB can't exist. It can't be all good, it can't be everywhere at once, it can't be all knowing, and it can't be all powerful. It is a limited being. You ready to admit that your MGB cannot be the god creature in the Bible, or Islam, or Judaism?

If so, then we need to figure out what those limits are...

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.

If our thoughts are just chemical reactions, then our instincts are just the possible variations within those reactions. There's no free will therefore, which automatically disproves the god creature of the Bible.

The "truth" does not depend on the existence of free will. What is true will be true regardless of whether or not human beings have true free will or not. A believer would naturally think this is self-defeating because you can't comprehend that truth does not need be connected to a directed purpose.

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.

So no answer. At this point this is your expected course of action...

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.

Than demonstrate how a being that exists everywhere and has a perfect existence can create something imperfect in that existence. Explain how you can change perfection.

A god creature has perfect existence.
The god creature creates something, which is a change in its existence.
You can't improve upon perfection, so any change to a perfect existence must be a reduction in perfection.

Solve your dilemma big boy...

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.

You have not resolved the issues surrounding evil or perfection, or existing everywhere. I guess you think you did, but your lack of comprehension of the contradictions in play hasn't allowed you to respond to the actual point. I've explained things further up above, hopefully that gets you going in the right direction.

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.

Than I can't figure out why you switched the topics. No matter, the logical contradiction still remains, and it is unsolvable. The premise is rejected.

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?

I had to join this forum. It had to happen. If that is what the god creature knew would happen, how can anything else possibly occur? If this was the only possible outcome, how can I have true free will as the Bible says? I can't, simply put.

Just because it appears that I freely chose to join this forum does not mean I did. With an omniscient MGB, I simply had to, there was no other possible outcome.

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...

And the MGB's free will as well don't forget

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.

I can deny it. I just did above. It isn't a free will choice if it is the only "choice" available to you. Even before you were born, the MGB knew if you were going to heaven or hell. You never get to "choose god" in that scenario if it is already known you are going to hell, and the god said we all have a choice...

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.

Except Bob can change his mind and not marry Sue. He is not bound to any course of action when the god creature does not exist.

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.

He is making a choice in the no-god scenario. He is following his destiny in the god scenario. He doesn't have to end up marrying Sue in the no-god scenario, he does in the god scenario. They are two different things...

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

Philosophers have been batting this one around for a long time, that's for sure.

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

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

As I mentioned before, I think the KCA has more holes than the MOA, but we will see.

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 you've demonstrated that where?

It would be a shorter list to point out where I HAVEN'T demonstrated it...lucky for you most of it is contained within this post since I have to keep repeating things.

and improve on its perfection via creating things

Who is saying that perfection was improved upon?

If the MGB has a perfect existence, how can it change that existence and it still remain perfect? If you have anything that is perfect, how can you possibly change it and it still remain perfect?

or know all and have free will

As mentioned above, I don't think the two are incompatible. If that is the case, then you have to deny your own free will, but you can't deny your own free will without admittedly that you are FREELY CHOOSING to deny your free will, with or without any second-party foreknowledge.

Or that is just the result of the chemical reactions and quantum mechanics in my brain at that time. Neither one of us know for sure...

or be all good and create potentially evil beings

So a perfectly good car builder cannot choose to build a "bad" running car. Doesn't follow.

How can something perfect do an imperfect thing? Everything it is and does is perfect, or else it cannot be a perfect being. Every thought, every action, everything is perfect. How does that being do something imperfect? It is incapable of imperfection.

or exist everywhere and have non-good things like evil, jealousy, etc exist within its existence.

Things like evil and jealous are all arbitrary choices that beings with free will make. How individual beings use their free will is no strike against God or his omni-butes.

It's a strike against the god creature's perfection and against his all-goodness. It can't be all good and perfect and exist everywhere and create evil and imperfection within it's realm of existence.

It's simple logic, and you haven't shown me to be wrong.

I can and I did.

I'm afraid you haven't. You simply aren't understanding.

[Kenisaw]

Alright, gang

Almost 50 pages into the thread, and I'd say that the thread has ran its course. I'd like to take the time to thank everyone that have participated in these intellectual slug-fests.

Hopefully, the argument has given everyone on here a chance to critically think..and if I am able to plant any seeds of Christianity with anyone on here, no matter how remote or how small the seed is...I've done my part for the Kingdom.

I won't be making any more posts on this thread after it reaches 50 pages in. I will now turn my attention to the KCA thread that I've been aching to create...and I hope to see most of you there.

Thank you all, again. It was a pleasure.

So the MOA is defeated. I'd wish you luck on the KCA, but that is already doomed, so...

[Kenisaw]

Recall if you will, who was it that admitted "One can define something anyway that he wants, whether or not the definition reflects reality...that is the question..." And yet there you are defining God as necessary, the way you want, never questioning whether or not the definition reflects reality: You cannot conclude there are no possible worlds where God doesn't exist simply because you have defined God to be necessary.

Let's experiment. In the OP Kingdom defines his being as

"omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere at any given time), and omnibenevolent (the ultimate source of goodness)"

but suppose he had simply left out omnipresent and only had omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent? What would happen to the MOA?

It would still fail. Any one Omni by itself is still a logical contradiction, particularly when the MGB is just a stand in name for the Bible god creature...

[rikuoamero]

In the year 1800, it was a fact that in whatever future year X , you will join this forum.

I'm wondering just how in the heck this would be a 'fact'? So if someone said in the year 1800 'Kenisaw will be a member of the online forum debatingchristianity dot com', just how could that be considered a 'fact'?
For one thing, the terms 'online forum' would be unintelligible to people, since that technology hasn't even been conceived of yet.

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

Given that this argument followed an earlier one where there was an omniscient god, just how or why is Bob going to marry Sue, in this second argument? How is it a 'fact' that he will marry her? At what point in time is point 2 said? After they've been engaged? As they're walking up the aisle? Or ten years before the two have even met?

What I'm objecting to here are your usages of the word 'fact', Kingdom.

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

Then create it already, and get started. I'm not the only one sick to death of you constantly saying and praising a thread you have yet to actively engage in (I know you commented once or twice in the thread I made, but I don't think you actually went anywhere).

[For_The_Kingdom]

That changes nothing. Those who granted P1 have since retracted it

They granted the possibility of a MGB...why would they need to retract from it if they are honestly granting the the possibility of a MGB existing? Why? Because I made them aware of what granting P1 would mean, so they retracted from it. Plain and simple.

There are no amount of excuses that you can make for them which will change a thing.

Talk about twilight zone, I wasn't the one who ask about disproving 2+2=4. That was you.

The point was simple; a possibly necessary truth cannot be disproved.

That's false and you know it. You've been responding to the reasons I gave in this very thread. That you judged my reasons to be "bad," doesn't make them non-existent now does it? So much for challenging other people on their intellectual honesty.

You gave a reason why P1 is false? Ohh, you mean that nonsense counter-syllogism that you offered which I proved to be false? Oh, that.

Besides that, what do you have? Because that was an epic failure on your part.

Not my problem. You figure out how to prove it then get back to me. Until you do, all you have is your mere assertion, no better than someone who claims they can imagine a square circle.

Your problem is the inability to prove the argument false, so you resort to petty "prove you can think of X" reasoning, which is obviously a red herring to take away from the fact that you don't anything to offer in terms of refutation.

I clearly distinguished between both types of existence (contingent and necessary), and I did so thoroughly throughout the entire thread. The idea of a being that has existed forever (necessary existence) is easily conceivable...and not only is it conceivable, but atheists believe and have been maintaining that the universe has existed necessarily (in various forms), but I doubt that you've ever challenged them to "prove that you can conceive of a universe that existed forever".

Like I said, it is just a distraction from your inability to deal with the argument.

That's the same red herring as before. You claimed how God was defined has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is possible for God to exist. I have demonstrated otherwise. How God was defined is relevant as to whether it is possible or not.

You are the one that keeps maintaining "you can't define God into existence", as if the definition itself has some magical powers and can reflect reality so long as the right words are patterned correctly or something.

God does not exist because he is "defined into existence"...he exists because it is POSSIBLE for him to exist, and all possible necessary truths must be true. P1 simply states that "it is possible for God to exist", which is either a true or false statement.

Plain and simple.

You have just contradicted yourself - in post#435 you acknowledged that it was not up to us to disprove it, you have the burden to prove it.

The burden is on anyone that is making claims of knowledge...it works both ways. Opponents of the argument doesn't get to just throw claims and assertions around without having the same burden of proof as the person defending the argument.

It works both ways. And besides, I would think that you'd be eager to defend you claims...unless you know that you can't.

And even if I couldn't, it's still up to you to prove it.

Nonsense. If you say "P1 is false", that is a statement that requires proof, evidence. Now sure, even if you say "P1 is false" but is unable to prove it false, that doesn't mean it is true by default...but then again, if I say "P1 is true" and I am unable to prove it true, that doesn't mean that it is false by default.

It works both ways. Again, I don't know what makes you think that you can just assert things and not be expected to be asked to prove your claims.

If that is what you think, then you have the game all messed up.

Yours is a classical case of argument from ignorance fallacy.

No it isn't. No one ever said "because you can't prove it false, therefore, it is true". I am saying "because you can't prove it false, I have no reason to believe that it is false and I will continue in my belief in the truth value of P1, since I have reasons to believe that P1 is true".

You are shifting the burden of proof and unapologetically so.

Actually, what I am doing is simple; asking you to back up your claims just like I am expected to back up mines. Again, you don't get to just throw unsupported claims around and act like just because it isn't a positive claim that it doesn't require proof.

I don't need to know P1 is false to challenge the truth value of P1

No, but if you claim P1 is false, you need to be able to support your claims. Now, if you say "I don't know whther P1 is true or false, but I reject your EVIDENCE for the truth value of P1", that is understandable.

But that is not what you are claiming, you are making an absolute statement, by CLAIMING that P1 is false, which is currently unsupported on your part.

you have burden of proof, this is debate 101.

Actually, it isn't. Every debate that I've watched, when someone disagrees with a premise, they give reasons why.

The record will show otherwise. You can't prove P1 true, and I can prove P1 false.

I must have missed your proof.

That depends on how God is defined in each instance. You were informed of this when you enquired about it earlier.

I defined God as "necessary"...and of course you don't like that definition because you know that once you grant the possibility of it, you've granted the existence of God.

You can't prove P1 false, so the best you can do is make angry faces at the definition, despite being unable to prove any kind of irrationality with the definition.

Are you forgetting that you questioned our intellectual honesty based on the apparent inconsistence in accepting the possibility of God outside of the MOA while rejecting the possibility of the MOA MGB? Here you are admitting it's your opinion that the two gods are one and the same. That invalidated your whole challenge.

I don't follow.

You are still speaking as if the implication wasn't known until you brought it to our attention. Let me remind you that when I counted there were only 4 atheists who wasn't sure what P1 was actually saying.

"It is possible for a MGB to exist"...seems pretty simple to me.

But it does matter, because the possibility of such a being depends on how it is defined.

And you've given me no reasons as to why the being can't exist, based on how it is defined.

It is? Prove it. More importantly, that you can conceive of a scenario where the concept of a MGB is absurd and P1 being false, is enough to demonstrate that it is possible for the MGB to fail to exist.

Ok, so prove that you can conceive of a MGB which doesn't exist, then? Prove it. I mean, we can play this nonsensical game all day. It is obvious that you cannot refute the argument.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, sir.

Just so you know, debating whether something is can be thought of, is common in philosophy. Most notably with the "philosophical zombie" regarding dualism.

Ok, and if it CAN be thought of, that would mean it is a logical concept, right?

I want you to admit that you cannot prove P1 true.

Any concept that is logically coherent is possibly true. A MGB is a logically coherent concept. Therefore, a MGB's existence is possibly true.

Yes, but a non-created God can also be a contingent one.

Nonsense.

That's just another misconception on your part. An eternal god can be contingent.

Impossible.

It's all too apparent that you aren't familiar with modal logic. With this latest attempt at "correcting" us, it's now more obvious than ever that the God you are conceiving is a contingent one.

Obvious based on what? You claiming it is?

Then tell us explicitly that you cannot prove that you can conceive of an necessary being.

Then tell me explicitly that you cannot prove that you can conceive of the nonexistence of a necessary being.

Not my problem.

It isn't my problem, either.

Hence the contradiction. It is that simple.

Yeah, and the contradiction lies within YOUR counter-argument...which in no way reflects the MOA.

Not false, just contradicts the premise.

It is false, and I explained why...and I don't see anything from you explaining why it is true. So basically, you are unable to defend your own argument.

Not necessarily, it could be a world where God doesn't exist.

Not the God as defined in the argument.

My bad. I assumed incorrectly that you were familiar with formal logic, given the technical explanation on modal logic in the OP.

I am glad that you admit it was technical...and not only was it technical, but it was pretty much my own words, besides the syllogism. Everything else was my own words...which was a detailed explanation on the terminology and everything that makes the argument, the argument.

So, thanks for the compliment...it wasn't needed, but it is appreciated.

It has now became clear that the explanation was regurgitated without real understanding.

No, there was no understanding of YOUR argument and the way that you presented it. There is understanding in MY argument and the way that I presented it.

That's when you entertained the idea of a possible world where no sentient beings existed.

No sentient beings besides the MGB? No problem. I justed imagined a possible world where the MGB didn't create humans. Easy. But the MGB is still there, isn't he?

So what exactly did you do besides waste my time refuting something that really had no effect on disproving any of the premises?

Exactly, that applies to both God and Artie, despite their differences. That should have been obvious.

You've yet to give any reasons why it applies to God, though. Because you can't.

I know, that's why the MOA fails. It is an attempt in defining God into existence.

No, it is an attempt to demonstrate why the existence of God is possible. I understand that as an atheist, you are having a difficult time coming to gripes with the fact that God's existence is possible.

But that is your problem, not mines.

Not without defining said god as necessary.

The definition isn't going anywhere. It is what it is. Your "I'd rather not have God defined as necessary" approach is a problem that you are going to have to deal with. It is a personal problem.

The fact of the matter is, the concept of such a being is logically sound..and based on our exchanges, you've offered nothing in way of good refutation that can change otherwise.

Because the truth of P3 is independent from the two preceding premises. That's the same mistake as before. P3 can be true while P1 is false.

Nonsense. If "a maximally great being exists in some possible world (P3) ", then "it is possible for a maximally great being to exist (P1) " .

And vice versa, if "it is possible for a maximally great being to exist (P1) ", then it is a maximally great being exists in some possible world (P3) ".

One premise cannot be false while the others are true.

That is incorrect and trivially so: #1 can be false, while #2 remains true exactly because #2 is true regardless of whether #1 is there or not.

Mary Jenkins is not my mother, therefore #1 is false. If Mary Jenkins is my mother, then I am indeed her son, #2 remains true.

Just to make it doubly clear:

1. Bust Nak is For_The_Kingdom's mother.
2. If Bust Nak is For_The_Kingdom's mother, then For_The_Kingdom is Bust Nak's child.

Ask yourself, is #1 true? Is #2 true?

Your point is granted, but please tell me that you are a female.

Exactly. You were informed of this as early as page 1.

Yeah, I was told that it isn't possible, but I wasn't told WHY it isn't possible. Not by you.

I mentioned P3 because it became clear you have some misconception about the MOA: You were and are still suggesting that P3 is follows from P1, when P3 actually depends solely on the definition provided in the preamble.

Regardless of what it depends on, the premises is true. No matter how we take it.

We can take it on its own..

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

Or we can take it with two preceding premises...

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.

Now matter how you take it, P3 is true...in fact, no matter how you take it, ALL premises of the argument are true.

Lets just say, your posts speak for themselves.

And yours don't?

Sure, which is why you had to define God as necessary for the MOA to be valid.

"If you didn't define God that way, the MOA wouldn't be valid" LOL.

"Hey Arnold Schwarzengegger, if you didn't go to the gym every day to build up your muscle mass and endurance, you would have never won all of those Mr. Olympia titles".

Hence the accusations of "you cannot define God into existence." Which is why I kept telling you: You cannot define God into existence. You know why the MOA doesn't work, yet you are still cheer leading for it.

Just because you don't like the definition doesn't make the truth value of P1 any less valid. The definition isn't changing. It isn't going anywhere.

Now, you can turn red and have smoke coming out of your nose as you consider the definition...but what you can't do is articulate why the concept of a MGB, as defined in the argument, is logical absurd.

That is what you CAN'T do. Until you do that, continue to make angry faces at the definition, and I will continue presenting and defending the MOA as logically sound and valid.

Commonly accepted as axiomic in S5 modal system. No adjustment required.

If you can't give me a possible world where 2+2= not 4...then you are giving me red herrings.

Now, that being said; this is my final post to you regarding the MOA. You can have the last word.

For what its worth, I will admit that I've learned something during our exchanges...but that only makes me more...dangerous. Thank you for the exchanges..

Meanwhile, I have bigger fish to fry, and a not-yet-created KCA thread to conquer.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Since you wrote that, a KCA thread was started, and your beloved KCA is getting pounded.

Correction: A KCA thread is getting pounded, not my KCA thread is getting pounded*

And you will know the difference between the two, shortly than you think.

But you can avoid this logical impossibility for now if you want, because it will still remain a logical impossibility in the KCA. Where we talk about it doesn't change that fact.

I will bring the pain, all you got to do is show up.

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Clarification

To all concerned:

It is expected that those who make a claim will support that clam with credible evidence.

It is NOT acceptable in reasoned and honorable debate to make a claim and ask others to prove it is false or to declare that it is true because it has not been refuted.


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[benchwarmer]

That changes nothing. Those who granted P1 have since retracted it

They granted the possibility of a MGB...why would they need to retract from it if they are honestly granting the the possibility of a MGB existing? Why? Because I made them aware of what granting P1 would mean, so they retracted from it. Plain and simple.

What's plain and simple is that you have ignored the explanation of why those such as myself retracted it. I did not retract it because I suddenly realized your argument was sound so I had to save face and no longer agree. I retracted it because I realized that when you say 'possible' it does not mean what I thought you originally meant.

Basically, some of us were not careful with definitions and later realized what was truly meant. After learning what was really meant, we rejected the premise since 'possible' includes 'necessary' in your argument.

This has been explained to you over and over. Your accusation that we are being dishonest is not appreciated. Have you never changed your mind after learning the truth about something? You didn't answer this question the last time I asked it so I imagine you might dodge it again.

I'm willing to admit that I made a mistake and confess that I learned something. You don't seem to be willing to accept that and prefer to resort to school yard tactics of 'nah nah, you said you agreed, no backsies'.

After 50 pages I would think that you could at least concede that you haven't convinced anyone that wasn't already convinced. Or you could keep insisting we are being dishonest and see where that gets you in other discussions that you try to engage us in. Hint, you will likely be ignored.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 500 by For_The_Kingdom]

They granted the possibility of a MGB...why would they need to retract from it if they are honestly granting the the possibility of a MGB existing?

Request please of readers - can those atheists who granted P1 in this thread chime in on why they retracted it? Is it as I suspect - that you didn't pay attention to the full OP and didn't realise that the MGB had been defined as 'not failing to exist' in the preface BEFORE the argument to prove its existence?

The idea of a being that has existed forever (necessary existence) is easily conceivable

This isn't what is in dispute. What is in dispute is you defining a being that exists in all possible worlds, including, somehow, worlds that do not have beings in them (along with the various omni's).
The paradox here is where the dispute lies.

P1 simply states that "it is possible for God to exist", which is either a true or false statement.

And in your preface, before you got to the actual argument, you said that the MGB/God "cannot fail to exist", so no, this latest line from you is NOT you talking about contingencies. This latest line from you is itself false, in that your P1 doesn't allow for either a true or false, it is rigged to be true by you.

I defined God as "necessary"

I'd like to know how this works in your mind. How is it that you defining God as 'necessary' (existing in all possible worlds) allows for P1 (it is possible for God to exist) to be either a true or false statement, rather than JUST 'true'? Where is the possibility for it to be false?

And you've given me no reasons as to why the being can't exist, based on how it is defined.

It's a paradox, like the examples you gave of a married bachelor, or triangles with more/less than 3 sides etc. It somehow exists in worlds without beings, according to your definition.

Any concept that is logically coherent is possibly true. A MGB is a logically coherent concept. Therefore, a MGB's existence is possibly true.

Not in my eyes, good sir. A married bachelor is not logically coherent, therefore it cannot possibly exist. A necessary being existing in worlds without beings is not logically coherent, therefore it cannot possibly exist.

Not the God as defined in the argument.

Again, this can only mean that P1 returns a 'true' result, it can NEVER return a 'false' result. Meaning it is rigged.

No sentient beings besides the MGB? No problem. I justed imagined a possible world where the MGB didn't create humans. Easy. But the MGB is still there, isn't he?

No. No beings = no beings, MGB included, since (part of) its definition is that it is a being. It's right there in the name.
What you did here reads as childish as being asked to imagine an empty room and you saying "Yeah, I can imagine an empty room...that still contains my bed and bedside drawers".

No, it is an attempt to demonstrate why the existence of God is possible.

Possible here defined as not failing to exist.

Your "I'd rather not have God defined as necessary" approach is a problem that you are going to have to deal with. It is a personal problem.

No, I'd rather God not be defined, in a preamble, as not failing to exist BEFORE the argument that supposedly proves it is even started!

Now matter how you take it, P3 is true...in fact, no matter how you take it, ALL premises of the argument are true.

Again, earlier you said P1 can be true or false. Are you now retracting that?

a not-yet-created KCA thread to conquer.

I would wait, with bated breath, but I don't want you to be an accessory to my death.
(hey that rhymes!)

[Artie]

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.

Now matter how you take it, P3 is true...in fact, no matter how you take it, ALL premises of the argument are true.

LOL If you hadn't already defined your MGB to be present everywhere before you started with the MOA P3 would be false. All your argumentation boils down to: "I have defined my MGB to be present everywhere and look... the MOA says my MGB is present everywhere!" What a coincidence!

If you would like to make up an imaginary being and make it exist in the real world just make sure you include "present everywhere" in the properties and use the MOA.