The Modal Ontological Argument

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

The Modal Ontological Argument

Post #1

Post by 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 false…or 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 isn’t 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, it’s possible.

That being said; let’s 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, I’d 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 God’s 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, God’s 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, you’ve 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 don’t think that you can, can you?

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #521

Post by rikuoamero »

rikuoamero wrote:
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
rikuoamero wrote: So...this topic has died down, and I notice that we STILL don't have For_the_Kingdom's Kalam thread.
I'm actually interested in it. He kept building up hype for it. So...where is it?
Ironing out some last minute details..it is a-coming.
Sorry man. I was waiting so long with baited breath that I ended up suffocating. Who knows though, I might end up resurrecting and reading the thread. ;)
Readers, please note that it has been almost a full YEAR and we still do not have a thread on Kalam from FtK.
Also to note, I have accepted a challenge from FtK to debate the MOA in a Head to Head. Thing is, he hasn't been online since Monday. Just thought I'd let people know.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #522

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

rikuoamero wrote:
rikuoamero wrote:
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
rikuoamero wrote: So...this topic has died down, and I notice that we STILL don't have For_the_Kingdom's Kalam thread.
I'm actually interested in it. He kept building up hype for it. So...where is it?
Ironing out some last minute details..it is a-coming.
Sorry man. I was waiting so long with baited breath that I ended up suffocating. Who knows though, I might end up resurrecting and reading the thread. ;)
Readers, please note that it has been almost a full YEAR and we still do not have a thread on Kalam from FtK.
Also to note, I have accepted a challenge from FtK to debate the MOA in a Head to Head. Thing is, he hasn't been online since Monday. Just thought I'd let people know.
SMH. You are a real piece of work, brethren.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20501
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

Post #523

Post by otseng »

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
rikuoamero wrote:
rikuoamero wrote:
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
rikuoamero wrote: So...this topic has died down, and I notice that we STILL don't have For_the_Kingdom's Kalam thread.
I'm actually interested in it. He kept building up hype for it. So...where is it?
Ironing out some last minute details..it is a-coming.
Sorry man. I was waiting so long with baited breath that I ended up suffocating. Who knows though, I might end up resurrecting and reading the thread. ;)
Readers, please note that it has been almost a full YEAR and we still do not have a thread on Kalam from FtK.
Also to note, I have accepted a challenge from FtK to debate the MOA in a Head to Head. Thing is, he hasn't been online since Monday. Just thought I'd let people know.
SMH. You are a real piece of work, brethren.
Moderator Comment

Please avoid all the personal comments. If you two cannot debate civilly, I will revoke the H2H participation.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Post Reply