Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

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

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

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

But lets define some stuff first..

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See next post..

[William]

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

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

See next post..


1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

Justification: The existence of a MGB is conceivable. We can imagine the existence of such a being. And if it is conceivable, it is possible.

We cannot easily [if at all] comprehend a being which has always existed - largely because it presents us with the problem of infinite regress but shifts from the question "Who created the Creator?" to "why isn't everything therefore already perfection?" Why does it appear things are on their way to somewhere, rather than already being everywhere all the same complete and without blemish?

The MGB [given the attributes you have assigned to It] should always be and have always been in a state of perfection yet we witness within the creation something incomplete. One cannot argue that our universe is incomplete if one also argues that the MGB is omnipresent - therefore is within our universe, therefore being all powerful would affect this universe in a way which would make this universe complete and eternal - so the state of this universe undermines the whole argument that there exists an actual MGB with the attributes you have assigned to it in order to make it qualify as an MGB

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

Hiatus over

Can you expand upon this point from your opening post? Specifically: is the Modal Ontological Argument (MOA) just one of a particular class of argument? And if so, what defines that class?

I think the "Ontological Argument" can be consider a class of arguments, which the modal version of it being just that; a version of this class.

I guess we can define the class as; a class of arguments which attempts to prove the existence of God based on pure reasoning, rather than observation.

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

I recall a ‘Head 2 Head’ forum discussion a while back on the MOA which ended unresolved. Your definition above actually helps shed some light on why that was the case. The interlocutors reached an impasse when one attempted to introduce a ‘Possible World’ that contained no Maximally Great Being (as defined the same as how you set out). Their argument was essentially “I can imagine such a world, therefore it exists”, while the original proponent of the MOA dismissed that Possible World as impossible, given the definition of God being omnipresent and therefore existing in every possible world.

Yes, that was a debate that I had participated in...and I will use that same argumentation now, actually.

Your statement about Possible Worlds could be taken to say that one might exist that was not only false, but actually impossible. That appears self-contradictory. But even if simply false (excluding the impossible), then an argument can be constructed from stating “we can conceive of a world in which no maximally great being exists” (perhaps true, perhaps false) and going on to conclude that God doesn’t exist in any possible world using the exact same logic as you have done.

Admittedly, your response above had me stumped for a bit...and as I stated before in a couple posts back, I was going to take some time to think about this and perhaps revise the argument with some additional premises.

But then as I began to think about it, this isn't necessary.

For the simple fact that, to conceive of a MGB is to imply that it is possible for such being to exist (a point I continue to emphasize).

If you then attempt to conceive the nonexistence of said being, then what you are doing is rendering the being's existence to one of contingency (that is, "I can conceive of a MGB existing, but I can also conceive of it not existing"). This is an obvious shifting of the existence concept (from necessary, to contingent).

In short, you are equivocating the term "existence", where in one case you can imagine the being existing necessarily, but in the next case, you imagine its contingent nonexistence.

Once you acknowledge/admit that it is possible for a MGB to exist, you cannot logically give it's nonexistence equal probability, because if it's nonexistence was equally probable, then it's existence possibility was never actually possible in the first place.

The being that you are referring to is actually a contingent one, and that is where your equal probability is coming from.

I said all of that to say this; sure, we can all imagine the nonexistence of a contingency being, but we cannot imagine the nonexistence of a necessary being...because of a necessary being cannot NOT exist.

From a bit of research, I’ve come across a few sites which explain how this contradictory position might have come about: the initial problem with the logic is in the initial step of defining God as eternal and therefore necessary. Which begs the question, what justification is there for defining God as eternal in the first place?

The question is "Is it possible for a MGB (defined as eternal) to exist in reality".

This is a yes/no question...and the question's truth value is independent of whether or not there is a "justification" for defining it that way.

Now, the question of "is the concept of a MGB justified?", then that is a different question, and I've given justification of the premises in the argument.

And to be scrupulously fair, the counter-argument (imagining a possible world with no God) can’t satisfactorily answer with logic alone where the universe came from without a creator.

I agree.

In summary, the MOA has to rule out impossible worlds, otherwise a “godless world” is allowed, which becomes self-contradictory. And in limiting itself that way, it begs the question “Is an eternal god possible?”, thus committing a logical fallacy.

See my answer above.

[We_Are_VENOM]

We cannot easily [if at all] comprehend a being which has always existed

Yes we can. Believers do it all the time.

- largely because it presents us with the problem of infinite regress

I can/will prove otherwise.

but shifts from the question "Who created the Creator?"

A necessary being cannot be created.

to "why isn't everything therefore already perfection?"

Can a perfect being create imperfection? Yes. Can a perfect being become imperfect? No.

Why does it appear things are on their way to somewhere, rather than already being everywhere all the same complete and without blemish?

Same answer as above.

The MGB [given the attributes you have assigned to It] should always be and have always been in a state of perfection yet we witness within the creation something incomplete.

A perfect painter can choose to create an imperfect picture...but it is a choice...the painter isn't bound by this imperfection.

One cannot argue that our universe is incomplete if one also argues that the MGB is omnipresent - therefore is within our universe, therefore being all powerful would affect this universe in a way which would make this universe complete and eternal - so the state of this universe undermines the whole argument that there exists an actual MGB with the attributes you have assigned to it in order to make it qualify as an MGB

Same answer as above. The imperfect state of our universe is based upon the imperfect state of mankind. It is man who is imperfect, not God.

If God was to create the "perfect" man, God would have to create the man with no free will...and to create man with no free will is not to guarantee that man won't use this freedom to commit imperfect acts.

This perfect and complete world does exist...have you ever heard of Heaven?

[We_Are_VENOM]

I can conceive it and also not conceive of it.

Impossible. The being which you can not conceive of is a being with a contingent existence.

I can conceive of it at a surface level -- as a hypothetical substance in a thought experiment.

That is precisely why the argument is so powerful, because that is all it takes.

Just by it's mere conception in a thought experiment is enough to say that the existence of said being is possible.

You cannot conceive of a one-sided stick in a thought experiment, can you? No, you can't.

Because it's existence isn't possible, that's why.

But I can't conceive of it in any comprehensive, molecular way that would actually make sense and work

And why won't it work? Because you don't want it to work?

.... So for the latter reason, it is not a necessary potential truth. It would have to be established that such a thing could work, given our laws. For the same reason I don't think we can jump to the conclusion that it is even possible.

Of course, the laws in a different universe could be different. But I would say you would need to establish that as well. That too is not an "obvious" necessary truth.

Please provide a reason as to why it won't work. Sure, you can say that, but can you provide justification as to why not?

I believe reality is not malleable. It is fixed. It isn't that "just anything" could be possible. That's what I think.

Sure, we have to take it on a case-by-case basis. And in this case, it is possible...as you've just admitted in thought experiment.

P.S., I believe anything that can be even contingent must be necessarily possible

Category mistake.

[William]

We cannot easily [if at all] comprehend a being which has always existed

Yes we can. Believers do it all the time.

There is a difference in stating ones belief in such, than actually comprehending such...

- largely because it presents us with the problem of infinite regress

I can/will prove otherwise.

Do so then. Are you waiting for a drum roll?

but shifts from the question "Who created the Creator?"

A necessary being cannot be created.

to "why isn't everything therefore already perfection?"

Can a perfect being create imperfection? Yes. Can a perfect being become imperfect? No.

Not what I am arguing.

Why does it appear things are on their way to somewhere, rather than already being everywhere all the same complete and without blemish?

Same answer as above.

That answer does not counter my argument. What it does offer is that imperfection appears to be the preferred type of creation..."why" is the question then. Is the MGB bored or I it something else?

The MGB [given the attributes you have assigned to It] should always be and have always been in a state of perfection yet we witness within the creation something incomplete.

A perfect painter can choose to create an imperfect picture...but it is a choice...the painter isn't bound by this imperfection.

One cannot argue that our universe is incomplete if one also argues that the MGB is omnipresent - therefore is within our universe, therefore being all powerful would affect this universe in a way which would make this universe complete and eternal - so the state of this universe undermines the whole argument that there exists an actual MGB with the attributes you have assigned to it in order to make it qualify as an MGB

Same answer as above. The imperfect state of our universe is based upon the imperfect state of mankind. It is man who is imperfect, not God

.

Not so. Man did not create this universe incomplete. Indeed, if humans are imperfect, then they were created that way in the first place. Same argument applies....Why would an MGB create imperfection if it were itself complete...

If God was to create the "perfect" man, God would have to create the man with no free will...and to create man with no free will is not to guarantee that man won't use this freedom to commit imperfect acts.

Which is to argue that the MGB is imperfect, because either way there is no "guarantee" which then tells us that the MGB is not an MGB because it is not omnipotent in regards to what it is able to create.

This perfect and complete world does exist...have you ever heard of Heaven?

Yes. But one perfect and complete world does not make an MGB an MGB in relation to any imperfect and incomplete worlds, which is why I argued "the state of this universe undermines the whole argument that there exists an actual MGB with the attributes you have assigned to it in order to make it qualify as an MGB"

[Dimmesdale]

I can conceive it and also not conceive of it.

Impossible. The being which you can not conceive of is a being with a contingent existence.

Okay. That means the magic water fuel has a contingent existence. Perhaps conceive is the wrong word then. I can only imagine it. Imagine ≠ conceive, then.

And why won't it work? Because you don't want it to work?

Because there is no way for it to work if we accept the laws currently. It hasn't been demonstrated at least. So it's an "unknown."

Please provide a reason as to why it won't work. Sure, you can say that, but can you provide justification as to why not?

I think the onus is on you. It hasn't been shown in any way to work even in a theoretical way. So why should anyone believe it to be possible? Again, taking our physical laws seriously. You can say it is "miraculously" possible, but that's not taking this substance to be actual; it's taking divine intervention to be possible. Those are different things.

I believe reality is not malleable. It is fixed. It isn't that "just anything" could be possible. That's what I think.

Sure, we have to take it on a case-by-case basis. And in this case, it is possible...as you've just admitted in thought experiment.

I don't think it is. Even if it is, we don't know it. Again, imaginable ≠ conceivable.

[We_Are_VENOM]

There is a difference in stating ones belief in such, than actually comprehending such...

Ok, well let me cease speaking for others and just state that I can comprehend it.

Do so then. Are you waiting for a drum roll?

*drum roll* Check my latest thread.

Not what I am arguing.

Then what are you arguing?

That answer does not counter my argument. What it does offer is that imperfection appears to be the preferred type of creation..."why" is the question then. Is the MGB bored or I it something else?

I covered "why" at the end of the post...but since that isn't what you are arguing and thus doesn't "counter" what you are arguing, we need not focus on it, do we?

Not so. Man did not create this universe incomplete. Indeed, if humans are imperfect, then they were created that way in the first place. Same argument applies....Why would an MGB create imperfection if it were itself complete...

Answered this already.

Yes. But one perfect and complete world does not make an MGB an MGB in relation to any imperfect and incomplete worlds, which is why I argued "the state of this universe undermines the whole argument that there exists an actual MGB with the attributes you have assigned to it in order to make it qualify as an MGB"

I fail to understand your point.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Okay. That means the magic water fuel has a contingent existence. Perhaps conceive is the wrong word then. I can only imagine it. Imagine ≠ conceive, then.

Same thing. To conceive it is to imagine it, and vice versa.

Because there is no way for it to work if we accept the laws currently. It hasn't been demonstrated at least. So it's an "unknown."

Right...but whose to say in another universe, the laws aren't different...thus, different results?

I think the onus is on you. It hasn't been shown in any way to work even in a theoretical way. So why should anyone believe it to be possible? Again, taking our physical laws seriously. You can say it is "miraculously" possible, but that's not taking this substance to be actual; it's taking divine intervention to be possible. Those are different things.

Based on the fact that it is conceivable/imaginable. If there aren't an infinite amount of "universes", can't it be possible in one of them?

[Dimmesdale]

Okay. That means the magic water fuel has a contingent existence. Perhaps conceive is the wrong word then. I can only imagine it. Imagine ≠ conceive, then.

Same thing. To conceive it is to imagine it, and vice versa.

Actually, there are many thinkers, such as Spinoza, who would disagree with you.

To imagine is not necessarily to conceptualize a concept in any robust way. Not to belabor the point, but we don't currently have any sort of blueprint for a substance that can replace water in organic bodies and also be the sole ingredient for space engines. The same thing with flying elephants. I can imagine an elephant flying with feather wings. But if we analyze physics, the known laws wouldn't allow a heavy elephant becoming airborne by butterfly-thin wings. That's just not what the laws allow. That doesn't stop me from daydreaming them though.

To imagine is to confusedly and haphazardly arrange images in the mind. To actually conceptualize is to go in-depth into the laws that make up nature and organize them consistently.

Right...but whose to say in another universe, the laws aren't different...thus, different results?

Well, if the laws are different, but then, other things would therefore also be different. So... it would probably be a universe completely different from our own.

Based on the fact that it is conceivable/imaginable. If there aren't an infinite amount of "universes", can't it be possible in one of them?

It could be possible in a different universe. But it also has to be established that those other universes really do exist. Or if they too are not truly possible. Given what we know from modern science, it's all a big unknown.

Perhaps the nature of laws are such that they apply in every universe? How do we know they don't? Perhaps death, old age and disease are universal, in every universe.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Actually, there are many thinkers, such as Spinoza, who would disagree with you.

To imagine is not necessarily to conceptualize a concept in any robust way.

There mere definition of conceive is to "imagine".

Not to belabor the point, but we don't currently have any sort of blueprint for a substance that can replace water in organic bodies and also be the sole ingredient for space engines. The same thing with flying elephants. I can imagine an elephant flying with feather wings. But if we analyze physics, the known laws wouldn't allow a heavy elephant becoming airborne by butterfly-thin wings. That's just not what the laws allow. That doesn't stop me from daydreaming them though.

Please explain to me why can I daydream about a flying elephant with wings, but I can't daydream about beating you with a one-sided stick.

Why can imagine one, and not the other?

To imagine is to confusedly and haphazardly arrange images in the mind. To actually conceptualize is to go in-depth into the laws that make up nature and organize them consistently.

False. I am "imagining" myself waking up tomorrow morning and having breakfast. There is nothing "confused and haphazardly" about it, either.

Well, if the laws are different, but then, other things would therefore also be different. So... it would probably be a universe completely different from our own.

Um, that is kinda the WHOLE POINT of the entire argument. Where do you think the whole "possible world" stuff is coming from?

Do you not understand the argument?