The Modal Ontological Argument

[For_The_Kingdom]

[PghPanther]

You can leverage the a word game and logical play to obtain any validation you want but it doesn't demonstrate that your claim exists within reality as best as we can know it without any evidence.

All you have done is play a game with words.

Point number #1 say is it possible......what in your imagination?......sure it can, but in reality?.......well you have to validate that with evidence before you make that statement.

I'll give you point #2 but you can't get there from point #1 as you have claimed.

Point #3 is an assumption that you cannot make............just because a UFO exists in some possible world doesn't mean it exists in all possible worlds.

Point #4 is another fail...............you can't get to all possible worlds in point #3 so how would you get to an actual world??

No way you can get to Point #5 at all with all the problems listed above..........

Who thinks up all these childish word games and thinks they are clever anyway?

Garbage in garbage out......this is foolish.

Demonstrate your claims of a supreme being by the results of its actions in reality beginning with something like a demonstrated miracle..............just one......once....ever occurring the defies the laws of nature........

[polonius]

Pgh Panther asked:

Who thinks up all these childish word games and thinks they are clever anyway?

ANSWER: Theologians. That's so they can write and sell their books.

And "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).

ANSWER: Sure it can. A proposition can be true sometimes but false other times.

And aren't you trying to compare a "necessary being" and something "necessarily true."

You've evidently fallen into circular reasoning.

[Willum]

I call MGBs, All-Powerful Entities (APEs).

I would like to call your attention to the Marvel Comic Book "Beyonder," who was an APE, but tucked himself into another Universe because he wanted to, and was still an APE. So, with #3 safely out of the way, we can talk about #1.

Only a fool would assume #1 was possible. That would be an Entity that could do anything, anywhere, anytime.

Premise 1: The only possible need for such a creature would be to describe the erroneous or impossible characteristics of something like the Judeo-Christian God. Since this God, or any other you can name doesn't need infinite powers except to do impossible things required for the particular religion to make sense, you don't need such an APE to exist unless you have the religion.

So unless there is a reasonable need for an APE, there is no basis to assume it exists. Hope is not a valid reason.

APEs do not describe anything. There is nothing in the Universe that would change without one, and since matter is neither created nor destroyed, we need no APE to create anything.

Premise 2: Something capable of doing anything, anytime anywhere would require infinite amounts of potential energy to do it, and would have to be located wherever it needed it done. Since energy has mass, it would have to have significant mass everywhere. By E=mc2, we don't find any unexplained mass, therefor, no APE.

So, logically we do not require an APE. Scientifically we do not require an APE. Religiously, it is only required to explain why inconsistencies in religious claims do not match reality.

V/R

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

Before I begin I will state for the record that philosophy is a rung below the scientific method on the ladder of being able to understand things,. We all know that in philosophy it is possible to get a true outcome that is, in reality, totally false. This is because philosophy uses premises to set up the argument, as opposed to data or empirical evidence in the scientific method. Philosophy is conjecture in other words, with no information required to support any claim (premise) that is made.

On to your post.

1) We can agree to this conditionally, although there is no evidence supporting that this is, in fact, possible.

2) The only universe known to exist (which I assume is meant by "world") is the one you and I are in. To claim a sufficient number of worlds exist so that one of them has a creative being in it is unsupported speculation. And that's still assuming that it even is, in fact, possible for such a critter to exist in the first place.

3) False logic. Just because something can exist in a possible world does that mean that it can exist in all worlds. Why? You have to prove that all the worlds are the same or similar so that this can be true. That requires proving that the other worlds exist, proving that the god creature exists, and proving that they all capable of having such a creature inside them. I don't believe anyone is going to take the time and effort to do that...

4) Wrong, because possible worlds are not this world. If the god creature is possible, then prove it exists in this world. If you cannot, there is no rational reason to conclude that it does.

5) by now the whole thing has fallen apart...

If you use your argument than your also have agree that literally every single god ever invented by man must exist. You have to agree that a monster that kills gods exist to. You'd have to agree that it is possible such a maximum great being does NOT exist, which gayer running it through means the bing can't possible exist. Can't have both true at the same time, but both are true under your argument.

This particular argument is an utter disaster...

[JoeyKnothead]

[For_The_Kingdom]

You can leverage the a word game and logical play to obtain any validation you want but it doesn't demonstrate that your claim exists within reality as best as we can know it without any evidence.

Actually, you can't

All you have done is play a game with words.

Actually, I didn't.

Point number #1 say is it possible......what in your imagination?......sure it can, but in reality?

In a possible world. Could not a MGB exist in reality?

.......well you have to validate that with evidence before you make that statement.

The MGB, as defined in the argument, violates no laws of logic...a MGB is conceivable...we can imagine that such a being exist...so if we can imagine it, it is possible...and all possible necessary truths must be actually true.

I'll give you point #2 but you can't get there from point #1 as you have claimed.

All point #1 states is that it is possible for a MGB to exist. Will you not admit that the existence of God (MGB) is possible? Again, most of you had no problem admitting that point prior to the argument. So I am going to go ahead and predict that now, suddenly, there will be many attempts to prove that it isn't possible for God to exist now.

LOL

Point #3 is an assumption that you cannot make............just because a UFO exists in some possible world doesn't mean it exists in all possible worlds.

Right, but you are comparing an alleged contingent existence (UFO) to an alleged necessary existence (MGB).

Apples and oranges.

Point #4 is another fail...............you can't get to all possible worlds in point #3 so how would you get to an actual world??

#3 follows from #1. As long as you admit #1 is true, the rest just flows quite naturally doesn't it? Again, what reasons do you have that #1 is false?

No way you can get to Point #5 at all with all the problems listed above..........

All what problems? LOL

Who thinks up all these childish word games and thinks they are clever anyway?

Who is trying to be clever? Either the premises are true, or they are false. You haven't refuted anything to be so uptight.

Demonstrate your claims of a supreme being by the results of its actions in reality beginning with something like a demonstrated miracle..............just one......once....ever occurring the defies the laws of nature........

Is it possible for God to exist? Yes or no. Darn it, I should have asked this question before I made the thread, just so I can have you guys on the record.

Now, I wait anxiously for this back peddling crap, "No, God's existence is not possible". LOL

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 8 by For_The_Kingdom]

Is it possible for God to exist? Yes or no. Darn it, I should have asked this question before I made the thread, just so I can have you guys on the record.

Is it possible for God to exist? YES! In exactly the same way that it is possible for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to exist. NEITHER of these possibilities can be established to be physically valid and true, however.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 8:

Is it possible for God to exist? Yes or no. Darn it, I should have asked this question before I made the thread, just so I can have you guys on the record.

Now, I wait anxiously for this back peddling crap, "No, God's existence is not possible". LOL

How's that not holdin' your hands over your ears thing workin' out there, OP?