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..

[We_Are_VENOM]

So you didn't actually read my full response? Did you miss the part where I said I could imagine it and then explained in detail the image I had in my brain of me trying to hit you with it? In fact it wasn't invisible to whoever is facing the one side. How did I come up with that if I didn't imagine it? I certainly didn't actually try to do it, so I MUST have imagined it.

Tell ya what, draw a picture of a one-sided stick and share it with the "class". Until you do that, I am not going to entertain any of, in my opinion, such foolishness.

The red herring is me basically spending time arguing with you about whether you can imagine it (which I know you can't), which is a DISTRACTION from the more important parts of the argument.

I simply refuse to do so. If you can imagine a one-sided stick, then draw it for me. In fact, I am literally BEGGING you to draw it for me. Pleaseeee, draw it for me.

If you can't, or simply refuse to do so, then there is no need to discuss the matter any more with you.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Well, like I said, there are many philosophers (including me) who would argue against you on this point, that it's not splitting hairs, but is a relevant distinction that has great implications.... I would say that these distinctions have been welded together/elided by the way humans use language indiscriminately, because in common parlance we aren't that careful in making distinctions. But I can't persuade you if you aren't willing to give the argument a hearing.

Then we just simply agree/disagree here.

I don't see why that possible world has to exist actually, not just as a hypothetical in the mind.

Because ,for the very reason I explained in the argument; if it is possible for a necessary proposition to be true, then it must be true in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS.

And the actual world (our world) is among ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS, so it would have to be true in this world as well.

That is just the way the cookie crumbles when dealing with necessary propositions.

We haven't demonstrated that there could be a MGB anymore than that laws of nature CAN be different, or that that elephants could have wings under those laws. All that is a big unknown to me and I don't see how you are getting there. I just don't see the logic of it.

Again, because the concept of a MGB is logically coherent...the concept itself doesn't violate any laws of logic and is both conceivable AND imaginable (happy now?).

Therefore, it is possible for a MGB to exist, and if it exist in at least one possible world, then it must exist in ALL possible worlds, including the actual world that we live in.

Just because you can imagine something, doesn't make it possible. Sorry, but I don't see anything in your argument to persuade me otherwise.

Yes, you can only imagine the possible within that particular field of imagination. Given the medium of imagination. Within those parameters. But you can't make it so that those particular images "graduate" to the level of beings on other planes of existence. Such as in science. It simply doesn't follow.

Please respond directly to the point that I had just made, because it is very important here. You admitted that a one-sided stick cannot exist because it is fundamentally absurd...thus, you are implying that it isn't possible for a fundamentally absurd object (or concept) to exist in reality.

Correct?

Now, based on that...doesn't it follow that if a fundamentally absurd concept can't be possibly true in reality, then it is possible for a logically coherent concept (or object/entity) to exist in reality?

It is the same logic, but on the opposite end, and there is no real reason not to accept this unless you simply don't like the end destination.

But it still stands that your imagination did not conform to the demands of reality. It didn't turn out to be a necessary truth. Hence it didn't follow any principle of reason. Hence it was random in the sense that it wasn't organized on any basis in the real world, but was dreamt up, having only your particular mind as its basis. Not as an objective fact. It may have partaken of some necessary information (such as that, in the past you made breakfast in the morning) but the very fact you can't universalize this demonstrates that the mind did not conceive it using reason (necessarily) but only imagined it (contingently).

It is an objective fact that all possible necessary truths must be actually true. This, is an objective fact.

And typically, most honest atheists would admit that the existence of a MGB (God) is at least possible. They admit this without knowing the full implication of what it means for God's existence to be possible...and that implication is that if God's existence is possible, then God must exist.

That, followed by the fact that again, most atheists don't reject the existence of God based on any logical incoherency as it pertains to the mere concept...they reject God for other reasons.

And most of them accept the given definition of God and find it conceivable, despite not believing it exists.

But again, all possible necessary truths must be actually true. That is an objective fact.

Spinoza would say, however, that even your contingent-seeming imagination had its basis in the necessary law of your mind. Spinoza was a determinist in that sense.

"Is it possible for a MGB to exist?"

This is a true/false question. Either the existence of a MGB is possible, or it isn't. Plain and simple.

That question is broken down at the most fundamental level possible, so if it is certainly possible for said being to exist, then said being must exist.

Still, to our eyes, it (rightly) appears contingent, because it lacks any (clear) foundation in prior law/causation/reason.

Then we are comparing apples and oranges here.

A necessary truth is possible only to our limited minds. In actuality, it was never possible, but always actual. There was never any possibility that 2+2 could equal to 4. On the contrary, it was an absolute certainty all along. Possibility (in the ontological sense) has nothing to do with that actually.

The fact that it is actual makes it possible, because if it wasn't possible, it wouldn't be actual.

If the laws for my mystery substance had to be different, then that would cause everything else in that universe to have to adapt to those different laws. Hence the universe would have a pink sky, for instance (to give a hypothethical example) in order to accommodate the mystery substance.

Sure, which is no different than comparing different countries or cities. In the USA, speaking against the government is legal and common. Over in North Korea, speaking against the government is forbidden and may carry dire consequences.

The sky may be blue in this universe, but a universe a gazillion light years away, it may be pink.

Physical laws may be different altogether, who knows.

Hence that mystery substance couldn't exist in our universe. Because it would have to be nested in a universe with different laws that would necessitate, for instance, a pink sky, among so many other things given that the laws are completely different. Since the substance can only exist in one hypothetical universe, not all, it follows it isn't necessary (or universal in all universes). So I assume it has an existence contingent merely on the laws in that particular universe.

Right, which has contingency written all over it. Sorry, but we are talking about necessary truths here, not contingent ones.

[benchwarmer]

So you didn't actually read my full response? Did you miss the part where I said I could imagine it and then explained in detail the image I had in my brain of me trying to hit you with it? In fact it wasn't invisible to whoever is facing the one side. How did I come up with that if I didn't imagine it? I certainly didn't actually try to do it, so I MUST have imagined it.

Tell ya what, draw a picture of a one-sided stick and share it with the "class". Until you do that, I am not going to entertain any of, in my opinion, such foolishness.

So now we are moving the goal posts. First you said "imagine" and now you demand "draw". Well, it's only ASCII art but here goes:

From your perspective as I try to hit you with the stick you will see it's one side which look approximately like: .

From any other perspective it will look approximately like:


Happy? I'm going to guess not, but now I've met both your challenges. I've imagined it and "drawn" it. What's next, send you one in the mail?

The red herring is me basically spending time arguing with you about whether you can imagine it (which I know you can't), which is a DISTRACTION from the more important parts of the argument.

Finally, at least you are explaining yourself. However, to be a red herring I would have to be the one creating the distraction. If countering your points with refutations is considered a distraction (which I suppose to YOU it might seem), that's unfortunate.

Anyway, I'm not trying to convince YOU of anything, I'm merely pointing out to readers my opinions and points of view. I leave it to them to decide their validity or lack thereof.

I simply refuse to do so. If you can imagine a one-sided stick, then draw it for me. In fact, I am literally BEGGING you to draw it for me. Pleaseeee, draw it for me.

Done. No need to beg. See above.

If you can't, or simply refuse to do so, then there is no need to discuss the matter any more with you.

Now what?

By the way, I checked, one sided sticks are not physically possible in our observable universe, so if you ask me to produce one for you I can't. You'll have to be content (or not) with my description of my imagination or my wonderful artwork above.

[William]

The way I understand things, if we do exist within a creation, then it is possible to understand the creation is the result of the Creator's imagination.

Given that we too have imagination, it is feasible that in the next phase [afterlife] we create our own realities, based upon stories told regarding the nature of that next phase which are secured in our imaginations.

You have to distinguish between imagination and the raw materials that are necessary to make that imagination take on greater reality.

I too believe the Creation springs from the mind of the Creator. However, the difference is that the Creator has far greater resources to actualize his "dreams" than the human or lesser created being does.

It's like whether one has the finances to become a capable artist. A human being may have a powerful imagination, but unless he has the monetary funds required to purchase things like oil paints, acrylics, spray bottles, canvasses, pain brushes, etc. his imagination can't be actualized. Or only partially compared to someone who owns an entire art studio.

So it is feasible that whatever can be imagined can then be experienced as real.

Only, again, to the extent there exists a medium wherein those imaginations can be actualized or given physical form. Otherwise, they reside merely within the mind, with no concrete realization.

As I understand it The Creator had no materials in which to build the physical universe, therefore used what was available to create with, which is The Mind of The Creator.

Being that it is The Creators Mind, things can be made to appear real,. Even our current universe. All realities being experienced is therefore within the Creators Mind.

Otherwise we would then have to include the idea that The Creator had available material which came from somewhere else which implies another Creator.
Even if we say that The Creator created the material "out of nowhere", this can be taken to mean the material existed in The Creators Mind and indeed, IS The Creators Mind...I see no way of getting around that logic.

[brunumb]

And typically, most honest atheists would admit that the existence of a MGB (God) is at least possible. They admit this without knowing the full implication of what it means for God's existence to be possible...and that implication is that if God's existence is possible, then God must exist.

I have reached the position whereby I no longer believe that God is even possible. Can you demonstrate that the reality of such a being with all its attributes is actually possible?

[P.S. I'm curious about why your signature is Hungarian for Buy Vetti Vecci]

[benchwarmer]

And typically, most honest atheists would admit that the existence of a MGB (God) is at least possible. They admit this without knowing the full implication of what it means for God's existence to be possible...and that implication is that if God's existence is possible, then God must exist.

I have reached the position whereby I no longer believe that God is even possible. Can you demonstrate that the reality of such a being with all its attributes is actually possible?

This is pointing to yet another fatal flaw in this argument. There's a vast difference between

1) Saying "it's possible" which is simply common vernacular for "I don't know"

and

2) Something ACTUALLY being possible.

In other words, I have no idea if a 500 legged mouse is physically (actually) possible but I might say "It's possible" if asked. However, what I really mean is "I don't know". This common use of the word 'possible' and the very specific "it's actually, physically possible" are being abused in this argument to garner agreement. Basically it's a bait and switch from "sure, I don't know, it's possible" to "it's actually possible".

[Dimmesdale]

Well, like I said, there are many philosophers (including me) who would argue against you on this point, that it's not splitting hairs, but is a relevant distinction that has great implications.... I would say that these distinctions have been welded together/elided by the way humans use language indiscriminately, because in common parlance we aren't that careful in making distinctions. But I can't persuade you if you aren't willing to give the argument a hearing.

Then we just simply agree/disagree here.

Okey-dokey. But one of us is still right and one is still wrong.

I don't see why that possible world has to exist actually, not just as a hypothetical in the mind.

Because ,for the very reason I explained in the argument; if it is possible for a necessary proposition to be true, then it must be true in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS.

And the actual world (our world) is among ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS, so it would have to be true in this world as well.

That is just the way the cookie crumbles when dealing with necessary propositions.

Why is the MGB a necessary proposition?
And why suppose a “possible world” has to be externalized and made even potentially real? Why not leave it at the level of the mind?

I confess, maybe I just don’t get it…. I’ve heard this argument over and over and I’ve never been able to make sense of it in my mind.

We haven't demonstrated that there could be a MGB anymore than that laws of nature CAN be different, or that that elephants could have wings under those laws. All that is a big unknown to me and I don't see how you are getting there. I just don't see the logic of it.

Again, because the concept of a MGB is logically coherent...the concept itself doesn't violate any laws of logic and is both conceivable AND imaginable (happy now?).

Therefore, it is possible for a MGB to exist, and if it exist in at least one possible world, then it must exist in ALL possible worlds, including the actual world that we live in.

Why assume this only of the MGB again? What makes that being unique? You could say this potentially of many beings. Are you saying all such logically coherent beings exist necessarily?

Please respond directly to the point that I had just made, because it is very important here. You admitted that a one-sided stick cannot exist because it is fundamentally absurd...thus, you are implying that it isn't possible for a fundamentally absurd object (or concept) to exist in reality.

Correct?

Now, based on that...doesn't it follow that if a fundamentally absurd concept can't be possibly true in reality, then it is possible for a logically coherent concept (or object/entity) to exist in reality?

It is the same logic, but on the opposite end, and there is no real reason not to accept this unless you simply don't like the end destination.

I would distinguish between ontological possibility (real possibility) and whether or not that possibility is permissible in the first place because it is hidden from us. In the latter case, we just don’t know. It is in other words “possible that it is possible” BUT…., how would we know? Because we can conceive of it? Nah, I don’t buy it. It just doesn’t make sense to me. :shrug:

It is an objective fact that all possible necessary truths must be actually true. This, is an objective fact.

In the context of the MGB, I don’t see why it is a necessary truth simply because we can conceive of it. From our point of view, we don’t know for which (such) concepts that sort of possibility is permissible in the first place. So, again, at best it is “possible that they are possible” but we can’t know for certain, it seems to me.

And typically, most honest atheists would admit that the existence of a MGB (God) is at least possible. They admit this without knowing the full implication of what it means for God's existence to be possible...and that implication is that if God's existence is possible, then God must exist.

You conflate two different types of possibility, again. Ontological or real possibility, and something that is ”possible” from the standpoint of our limited knowledge. It is in the latter case that the atheist makes his stand. He doesn’t know. But whatever he doesn’t know is actually an eternal fact which admits of no real (ontological) possibility.

That, followed by the fact that again, most atheists don't reject the existence of God based on any logical incoherency as it pertains to the mere concept...they reject God for other reasons.

And most of them accept the given definition of God and find it conceivable, despite not believing it exists.

But again, all possible necessary truths must be actually true. That is an objective fact.

Atheists reject God for many reasons I think. Some valid, others not so much.

I would say if a necessary truth is necessary, you don’t even have to tack on “possible” – it’s simply actually true. But I don’t get that from the argument in question.

"Is it possible for a MGB to exist?"

This is a true/false question. Either the existence of a MGB is possible, or it isn't. Plain and simple.

That question is broken down at the most fundamental level possible, so if it is certainly possible for said being to exist, then said being must exist.

Depends what form of possibility you are considering. I have outlined at least two. For me that essentially nullifies your argument. Because I regard this question from the standpoint of knowledge, not “coming to be” – which wouldn’t apply to God anyway.

The fact that it is actual makes it possible, because if it wasn't possible, it wouldn't be actual.

See above….
I actually think I can rest my case.

Real possibility would be the chances of me winning the lottery (assuming there is an uncertainty principle in the world and it isn’t just deterministic). Barring that, the only real meaning to the word “possibility” is whether something can be real because it is hidden from us -- theists and atheists thus come to different conclusions based on the circumstantial 'clues' given to us. Possible doesn’t even apply to God in my opinion because he would have had to come into being. As it stands though, he’s eternal. I can agree with you there.

[We_Are_VENOM]

So now we are moving the goal posts. First you said "imagine" and now you demand "draw". Well, it's only ASCII art but here goes:

From your perspective as I try to hit you with the stick you will see it's one side which look approximately like: .

From any other perspective it will look approximately like:


Happy? I'm going to guess not, but now I've met both your challenges. I've imagined it and "drawn" it. What's next, send you one in the mail?

First off, I don't believe you've "imagined" anything. Second, I asked you to draw it...you claimed you did...and I don't see it.

So I have no choice but to move on and thereby no longer entertain the foolishness.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Okey-dokey. But one of us is still right and one is still wrong.

I certainly agree with you there.

Why is the MGB a necessary proposition?

My bad. What I meant was, that is the way the cookie crumbles when dealing with propositions that are of necessity nature (in modal logic). I hope that makes sense.

And why suppose a “possible world” has to be externalized and made even potentially real? Why not leave it at the level of the mind?

But why ask such questions? Suppose I said..

"The UFC is offering tryouts today, I am confident that if I go down there and tryout, I will get offered a contract by 6pm today".

That is a "possible world"...it is a set of circumstances that may/may not be true.

Is there anything wrong with that "possible world"? No. That is everyday stuff.

Will you ask me, "The idea of you getting offered a contract later today, why not leave it at the level of mind"? Probably not?

Well, why ask it here?

I confess, maybe I just don’t get it…. I’ve heard this argument over and over and I’ve never been able to make sense of it in my mind.

It took me a while to grasp it, bro. But once I got it, I GOT IT.

And besides, I am here for you

Why assume this only of the MGB again?

What makes that being unique? You could say this potentially of many beings. Are you saying all such logically coherent beings exist necessarily?

To answer these questions, I think we can safely appeal to Occam's Razor; no need to multiply beyond necessity. There is nothing that a thousand MGB's can do that one MGB can't do.

All we need is one, and we have one.

I would distinguish between ontological possibility (real possibility) and whether or not that possibility is permissible in the first place because it is hidden from us. In the latter case, we just don’t know. It is in other words “possible that it is possible” BUT…., how would we know? Because we can conceive of it? Nah, I don’t buy it. It just doesn’t make sense to me. :shrug:

Yet, you seem to buy the fact that if we can't conceive it (one-sided stick), that it isn't possible. That part makes sense to you...but only when it comes to something we can conceive of which draws theistic conclusions...now of a sudden, it doesn't make sense??

Inconsistent reasoning?

In the context of the MGB, I don’t see why it is a necessary truth simply because we can conceive of it.

I will keep driving home this point as much as needed. You had JUST SAID that the concept of a one-sided stick is fundamentally absurd, and that is why we cannot conceive it and therefore its existence is impossible.

So, why doesn't it follow that things we can conceive, which are logically coherent; the existence of these things are logically possible.

I've yet to see a response to this inconsistence in logic...and I am waiting.

But a more direct response; as I keep stating, all possible necessary truths must be possible.

You conflate two different types of possibility, again. Ontological or real possibility, and something that is ”possible” from the standpoint of our limited knowledge. It is in the latter case that the atheist makes his stand. He doesn’t know. But whatever he doesn’t know is actually an eternal fact which admits of no real (ontological) possibility.

Ok, so since I am conflating two different types of possibilities..lets go back to the basics..

1. Either a MGB's existence is possible

or

2. A MGB's existence isn't possible

Those are yes/no propositions...no conflation there.

Atheists reject God for many reasons I think. Some valid, others not so much.

I would say if a necessary truth is necessary, you don’t even have to tack on “possible” – it’s simply actually true. But I don’t get that from the argument in question.

Yeah, but it has to be proven necessary in order to "know" it is necessary...and you prove its necessity just by proving its possibility.

Depends what form of possibility you are considering. I have outlined at least two. For me that essentially nullifies your argument. Because I regard this question from the standpoint of knowledge, not “coming to be” – which wouldn’t apply to God anyway.

I do not follow.

See above….
I actually think I can rest my case.

Real possibility would be the chances of me winning the lottery (assuming there is an uncertainty principle in the world and it isn’t just deterministic). Barring that, the only real meaning to the word “possibility” is whether something can be real because it is hidden from us -- theists and atheists thus come to different conclusions based on the circumstantial 'clues' given to us. Possible doesn’t even apply to God in my opinion because he would have had to come into being. As it stands though, he’s eternal. I can agree with you there.

LOL. Ok, let me put it to you this way, Dimm..I will ask you a simple question..

Is it possible for 2+2=4?

That is simply a yes or no question, isn't it?

Now, you wouldn't dare answer "No" to the question, would you? I assume not.

So, it is I will who will rest MY case.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I have reached the position whereby I no longer believe that God is even possible. Can you demonstrate that the reality of such a being with all its attributes is actually possible?

I did, in the argument.

[P.S. I'm curious about why your signature is Hungarian for Buy Vetti Vecci]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venni_Vetti_Vecci