.
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..
Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Moderator: Moderators
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #71And all I see is what I perceive to be red herrings, semantics, and general misunderstandings of both modal logic, and the argument itself.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:52 pm My problem is that I don't see any reasoning. All I see is a bunch of false premises based on linguistic misunderstanding.
But, that's my perspective. You are fully entitled to your own.
But, that's my perspective. You are fully entitled to your own.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14003
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #72We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:34 pmAnd all I see is what I perceive to be red herrings, semantics, and general misunderstandings of both modal logic, and the argument itself.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:52 pm My problem is that I don't see any reasoning. All I see is a bunch of false premises based on linguistic misunderstanding.
But, that's my perspective. You are fully entitled to your own.
But, that's my perspective. You are fully entitled to your own.
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #73And I would say, you don't actually know what you think you know.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:31 pmYou go by what you think. I go by what I know.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:45 pm I think you can't use the word 'possible' in that way, technically speaking.
As I've already provided sufficient evidence to the effect that it isn't that simple, shows you are either blind to what I've presented or willfully ignorant. I think you just don't understand where I'm coming from. Because you think you are already right. Hard to argue with such an entrenched view.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:31 pm The misunderstandings are on your part, not mines. Either God's existence is possible, or impossible.
How can I agree with your proposition if we can’t even formulate a precise definition of what ‘possible’ means?
Which means you can't even empathize with what I'm saying. You're blinded by your own conclusion that can't possibly be wrong. Or you think my objections are too trivial to be considered. That doesn't show much respect in debate.
I think based on what I've concluded to be true. I think you and I are similar in that respect. We've just come to radically different conclusions. The difference is, you don't bother to look at my own perspective. I've at least tried to see yours.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:31 pmWell, you can continue to "think" whatever you like, that doesn't negate the fact that all possible necessary truths must be actually true.
God.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:31 pm Please provide an example of something that is actual, without being possible.
God never came to be. Thus he was never possible in the ontological sense.
God is above the wrangling of agnostics. Thus he is immune to possibility in the epistemic sense.
Lastly, while it may be said God is rationally possible, that is a pointless description. Rather, it suffices to say that he is real and not absurd. The word ‘possible’ contributes NOTHING to the essence of God. It is a hollow descriptor, in my view.
I’ll die with my pants on.
Apples and oranges. That is a description of an event, again, not an abstract truth. 2+2=4 can be a concept that can be practically applied in the real world by actors like us, but that doesn’t TOUCH the abstract essence of 2+2=4. 2+2=4 simply IS. The premise is contained in the conclusion, and vice versa. There is no “doing” of anything. Everything we draw out of it is in relation to us, not it.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:31 pmIf your son has two video games and he asks you, "Dad, I have two video games..but is it possible for me to have four video games".
And you say, "Sure, son".
And you go to the store and buys him two video games and gives it to him...and you say, "Now you have four video games".
You've just demonstrated the possibility of 2+2=4 with the purchase of two games.
Furthermore, what you described is contingent. I could have refused to buy two more video games. Can the second 2 in 2+2=4 REFUSE to add to the first, and result in 4? Absurd. 2+2=4 is a necessary, self-contained truth that exists by the power of its own essence. It doesn’t rely on any “doing.”
It doesn’t work because it’s wrong. I’ll tell ya that.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:31 pmIf that analogy doesn't work for you, then I don't know what to tell ya, sir.
It’s a game you have to play if you weren’t the one to tie the knot in the first place.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:31 pmI do care, but red herring semantics is a game I don't like to play.
Your definition is vague and useless. It’s insufficient. I’ve at least tried to expand on what it actually COULD mean, but since you refuse to listen…. Well, there’s always hope.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:31 pmI stated to you what "possible" means in the context of the argument. There is no need to bring in any additional definitions. The definition, as it pertains to this subject, is what it is.
All I have to do is show that the definition of “possible” is incoherent and meaningless. I’ve analyzed this in greater detail in my thread “Does All Actuality Imply Possibility?”We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:31 pmI Unless you can somehow conjure up a reason as to why the existence of a MGB isn't "able to be done" (isn't possible), then all you've done is create red herrings all over the place, positing definitions that has nothing to do with what is going on with the argument.
That is what has been happening thus far.
At best, your argument is a big “Maybe”. Either that, or it’s irrelevant. This is based on painstaking analysis of the definition(s) of ‘possible.’
Last edited by Dimmesdale on Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6608 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #74Despite all your claims, the existence of God is not a necessary truth.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:31 pm Well, you can continue to "think" whatever you like, that doesn't negate the fact that all possible necessary truths must be actually true.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #751. All possible necessary truths must be actually true.brunumb wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:46 pmDespite all your claims, the existence of God is not a necessary truth.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:31 pm Well, you can continue to "think" whatever you like, that doesn't negate the fact that all possible necessary truths must be actually true.
2. God's existence is possibly necessarily true.
3. Therefore, God's existence is actually true.
Looks good to me. I haven't seen anything proven otherwise, not from you, or anyone. I know the conclusion is hard to deal with, but that is your problem, not mines.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6608 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #76Unsupported assertion. God's existence is also possibly not necessarily true.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #77That is your mistake. Just because something is conceivable doesn't mean it's possible. That is not a true statement.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:03 pmAnything that is conceivable is possible, it just doesn't mean that it is true. Harry Potter's existence is contingent upon someone conceiving of it and making a story about it...or Harry Potter's existence could be based on a universe which allows such things (within the story) to occur.
It is possible, it just isn't true.
We can make this easy. Above, you admitted the possibility of Harry Potter's existence. Now, I ask you, will you admit that the existence of God is possible?
A simple yes or no will be adequate.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9855
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #78The weakest part of the argument is the first premise.
While lots of philosophers think philosophical zombies are conceivable, many philosophers think they are not. The mere existence of people who believe they are imagining p-zombie isn't enough to disprove the latter group of philosophers, because of the possibility that people conceiving something they mistakenly identify as p-zombies, but in fact something else.
While we are here, there are two kinds of "conceivable," throughout this thread you are using the "conceivable" in the sense that is synonymous with modal possibility, but there is another sense of "conceivable" where it does not imply modal possibility - I am, at this moment right now, entertaining the notion of philosophical zombies, it's a automation that acts like a person in every way physically but not conscious, that much is very easy to imagine. Does that mean p-zombies are conceivable? In the prima facie sense, sure, yet they are not automatically possible. We know square-circles are impossible because of the necessary truth "1 side does not equal 4 sides," there might be some (yet unproven) necessary truth that renders p-zombies impossible, same goes for your MGB.
With all that said, please demonstrate that MGB is conceivable in the modal sense. Without the truth of the first premise, the argument is valid at best. The provided justification as it stand right now is question begging: we can imagine the MGB because it is possible, and the MGB is possible because we can imagine it; or worse, a equivocation fallacy where the two notions of conceivability/imaginable are being mixed up.
Is it conceivable, is it imaginable? Prove it.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:29 pm The existence of a MGB is conceivable. We can imagine the existence of such a being. And if it is conceivable, it is possible.
While lots of philosophers think philosophical zombies are conceivable, many philosophers think they are not. The mere existence of people who believe they are imagining p-zombie isn't enough to disprove the latter group of philosophers, because of the possibility that people conceiving something they mistakenly identify as p-zombies, but in fact something else.
While we are here, there are two kinds of "conceivable," throughout this thread you are using the "conceivable" in the sense that is synonymous with modal possibility, but there is another sense of "conceivable" where it does not imply modal possibility - I am, at this moment right now, entertaining the notion of philosophical zombies, it's a automation that acts like a person in every way physically but not conscious, that much is very easy to imagine. Does that mean p-zombies are conceivable? In the prima facie sense, sure, yet they are not automatically possible. We know square-circles are impossible because of the necessary truth "1 side does not equal 4 sides," there might be some (yet unproven) necessary truth that renders p-zombies impossible, same goes for your MGB.
With all that said, please demonstrate that MGB is conceivable in the modal sense. Without the truth of the first premise, the argument is valid at best. The provided justification as it stand right now is question begging: we can imagine the MGB because it is possible, and the MGB is possible because we can imagine it; or worse, a equivocation fallacy where the two notions of conceivability/imaginable are being mixed up.
POSSIBLE in which sense? Possible as in "not trivially contradictory" sense is not the same thing as the modal, true in some world sense. Maybe what we are actually conceiving, is a bearded guy sitting on a cloud, mistakenly identified as a MGB?[Ultimate conclusion: If it is even POSSIBLE (which most of you will admit) for a MGB to exist...]
We don't need to, we have the easier job of merely poking holes in your justification. We don't need to show the premises are false, just that they have yet to be proven true.So far, no one has even attempted to demonstrate why any single premise is false...
That's the point, maybe you are not sitting there imagining a MGB because a MGB could not be imagined. Maybe the "it" that you are sitting there imagining, isn't the MGB as defined. Can you do more than insisting that you are imagining it?If the concept of a MGB couldn't be imagined, then I wouldn't be sitting here imagining it.
And yet we are supposed to take your word for it that you've imagined the MGB as defined without mistake?First off, I don't believe you've "imagined" anything.
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #79Can't be. A proposition can not equally be possibly true, and possible not true. If one is true, then the other one is negated.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- We_Are_VENOM
- Banned
- Posts: 1632
- Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
- Has thanked: 76 times
- Been thanked: 58 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #80Illogical concepts cannot be conceived. If that was the case, then you would be able to conceive of 2+2=96, but you can't, because it isn't possible.
And if you can understand that, then apply the same logic to a MGB...and get the same results.
Unless, of course, the taxi cab fallacy is rearing its ugly head here.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!