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..

[Bust Nak]

Oh, well good for them. I am imagining a MGB, as defined in the argument.

Well, as before, prove it.

Can you show that they are not imagining a MGB and instead are imagining a not so MGB sitting on a cloud?

You are shifting the burden of proof again, support your claim, whether I can or cannot show that they are not imagining a MGB is irrelevant.

I've already explained (to you and others) why the concept of a MGB is logical. The fact that I can conceive it (since illogical concepts can't be conceived), and the concept doesn't violate any laws of logic.

These are all assertions that needs to be demonstrate. Can you do it?

I have repeated the same thing over and over again to multiple people, and this is the last time I am repeating it.

Repeating it doesn't help, you were asked to demonstrate it.

Now, if you feel as if the concept of a MGB violates any laws of logic, then enlighten me. That is about the only thing you can do to defeat the argument.

Not so. Pointing out that you have not demonstrated your premises is also a way defeat the argument.

No, because what you described is a illogical concept...and illogical concepts cannot be imagined.

Exactly, described is a concept does not imply that it can be imaged, exactly because the concept described can be still be illogical. I am glad you've come to accept this much.

Yes, because what I described is a logical concept, and that which is logical can be imagined.

So you keep insisting, perhaps you could try demonstrating it for once, that you have indeed described a logical concept?

Your curiosity should be satisfied at this point.

No, I am quite disappointed.

Oh, it is definitely necessary. The argument wouldn't be anything without the necessity part.

So the argument hinges on that one thing? In which case it would only be fair for you to demonstrate that it is indeed necessary.

Been there, done that. You don't agree that I did? Well, I guess we just see the world differently, old friend.

Yes, I don't take obvious question fallacies as valid demonstration, we do see the world very differently.

Ahhh yes. Empty claims with no justification whatsoever. Gotta love it.

You sure do, you sure do.

Nope. Not repeating myself. If you disagree that the existence of a MGB is a logical concept, then dazzle me.

What I agree or disagree to, is my own business, at least until I make a claim. Suffice to say you have yet to demonstrate the truth of your first premise.

Until then, the argument stands firm.

That's not how arguments work, you made the claim, you support it.

Ok, well on the flip side; I want you to prove to me that you cannot conceive of a MGB..and if you can't, then it also isn't my problem that you cannot.

Sure, not my problem either, since I never claimed such a thing.

Wait a minute, shifting the burden of proof? You just made a claim. You said above "God's existence is impossible; God does not exist".
That is a claim of knowledge.

Wrong again, it was an example of a simple yet valid argument. I will gladly support my claim that the argument is indeed both simple and valid, would you like me to do that instead?

I actually gave proof for my claims, in the justifications of the argument.

Well there was an attempt, I will give you that much. Bare assertions stacked on top of more bare assertions that loops back on itself, is not a proof.

And instead of dealing with the justifications, you've spent the entire time attacking whether or not I can actually conceive of the being that I am describing...

But that's literally the same thing, attacking whether or not you can conceive of the MGB is dealing with the justification - you used the claim that the MGB is conceive as justification for your first premise.

which is a moot point because all I have to do at that point is challenge you to prove to me that you cannot conceive of a MGB.

I don't have to meet that challenge, since I didn't claim you cannot conceive of a MGB. But since you worded it as a challenge, I will give it a go after this post, just because I can't let up a challenge.

Or, we can just call the entire "bearded guy" thing irrelevant and focus on the actual argument, which is that of a MGB.

How about no, we kept this "bearded guy" thing in mind as a defeater for the justification that atheists and theists alike can imagine the Christian God therefore they can imagine the MGB?

Again, been there, done that.

Again, "imaginable therefore conceivable, conceivable therefore possible, possible therefore logical, logical therefore imaginable" is not a demonstration of either imaginability, conceivability, possibility or logical validity. It's a circular argument, a fallacy. If you only address one point, address this one.

Ahh yes. The argument is so complex, yet so simple, isn't it? It helps create a nice balance.

Complex to whom? I found it quite simple.

[Bust Nak]

And now for the challenge you issued, consider the following argument:

1) 1. It is possible that nothing what-so-ever exists.

Justification: We can imagine a complete lack of existence. And if we can imagine it, then it is conceivable; if it is conceivable then it is logical, if it is logical then it is possible; if it is conceivable then it is imaginable. I am imagining it right now. I can imagine it because of the fact that I can conceive it, and the concept doesn't violate any laws of logic. A complete lack of existence is where nothing exists at all, no time, no space, not even a void, the fact that I have described it here, is enough proof that it can be conceived. That it can be conceived means it is logical. And beside, you cannot prove that I am not imagining a complete lack of existence.

2. If it is possible that nothing exists, then a maximally great being do not exist in some possible world.

Justification: If it is possible nothing exists, then no beings (including MGB's) manifest in some possible world (or set of circumstances).

3. If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in any possible world.

Justification: Since the existence of a MGB is “necessary,” then based on the fact that all necessary truths must be true in all possible words (2+2=4 in all possible worlds), then it follows that a MGB do not exist in any possible world.

4. If a maximally great being does not exist in any possible world, then the MGB is impossible.

Justification: Self explanatory

5. If the MGB is impossible, then it is not logical, conceivable, imaginable nor possible.

Justification: Only possible things can be imagined or conceivable.

6. Therefore I cannot conceive of a MGB. You cannot conceive of a MGB either, no one can.

Ultimate conclusion: the MGB is impossible, therefore the MGB does not exist.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #2]

It is not possible that a MGB exists. A MGB contradicts itself, and a being that contradicts itself cannot be maximally great. A god that is all knowing and can change the future is contradictory. A being that is perfect and created imperfect humans is contradictory. A maximally great being can create a square circle and a married bachelor, both contradictory things. A MGB is supposedly omnipotent, but can't do everything.

An MGB can't possible exist.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Repeating something doesn't make it true. You gave an example that you said was impossible. By giving an example you said was impossible, you conceived it.

Therefore your axiom is falsified

Um, excuse me; but when did I "give an example that I said was impossible"? You were the one who claimed that your example was seemingly impossible, not I.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Well, as before, prove it.

Yeah and as I said before, you prove it.

You are shifting the burden of proof again, support your claim, whether I can or cannot show that they are not imagining a MGB is irrelevant.

Nope, if you want to postulate whether or not they are imagining a "bearded guy on a cloud", then prove whether they are, or not.

These are all assertions that needs to be demonstrate. Can you do it?

I can, once you reach inside your brain and pull out the lack of thought of a MGB. Can you do it?

Repeating it doesn't help, you were asked to demonstrate it.

Giving unreasonable challenges doesn't help either. Again, can you reach inside your brain and demonstrate this lack of thought of a MGB?

Not so. Pointing out that you have not demonstrated your premises is also a way defeat the argument.

Oh, well, in that case..

"Prove to me that you cannot imagine a MGB".

So, me pointing out the mere irrationality of your objection is a way to defeat your refutation.

Or, at least that is one way to do it.

Exactly, described is a concept does not imply that it can be imaged, exactly because the concept described can be still be illogical. I am glad you've come to accept this much.

Yeah, I've come to accept that you successfully described something that is illogical, but you did not imagine this thing.

What you did..

1. Description: check
2. Logical: unchecked
3. Imagined: unchecked

Which is contrary to when I described something that is logical, which allowed me to in return imagine it.

What I did..

1. Described: check
2. Logical: check
3. Imagined: check

So step your "check" game up.

So you keep insisting, perhaps you could try demonstrating it for once, that you have indeed described a logical concept?

Been there, done that.

Again, if you think otherwise, then reach inside your brain and hand me the nonexistent thought of a MGB.

Until you do that, then keep the "prove you can imagine a MGB" stuff to yourself. Because I can promise you, you will get the flip side of that...every...single...time.

No, I am quite disappointed.

Hey, can't please everyone.

So the argument hinges on that one thing? In which case it would only be fair for you to demonstrate that it is indeed necessary.

Been there, done that. Next..

Yes, I don't take obvious question fallacies as valid demonstration, we do see the world very differently.

We at least see that part the same.

What I agree or disagree to, is my own business, at least until I make a claim. Suffice to say you have yet to demonstrate the truth of your first premise.

Hmmm..."God's existence is not possible". Didn't you make that claim? Demonstrate the proof of that claim of knowledge, sir.

That's not how arguments work, you made the claim, you support it.

Been there, done that.

Sure, not my problem either, since I never claimed such a thing.

Again, you claimed that God's existence is not possible. Demonstrate the truth value of this claim.

Wait a minute, shifting the burden of proof? You just made a claim. You said above "God's existence is impossible; God does not exist".
That is a claim of knowledge.

Wrong again, it was an example of a simple yet valid argument. I will gladly support my claim that the argument is indeed both simple and valid, would you like me to do that instead?

Soo, you're statement of "God existence is impossible" was not a claim of knowledge? So what was it, a claim of unknowledge/non-knowledge?

Hmmm.

Well there was an attempt, I will give you that much. Bare assertions stacked on top of more bare assertions that loops back on itself, is not a proof.

Which is more than I can give you for your claims.

But that's literally the same thing, attacking whether or not you can conceive of the MGB is dealing with the justification - you used the claim that the MGB is conceive as justification for your first premise.

So again, your statement of "God's existence is not possible", I am attacking whether or not you can conceive of the nonexistence of a MGB of whom existence is impossible.

How do you know that you aren't imagining a MGB of whom existence is possible, and mistaking it for a MGB whose existence isn't possible? (analogous to the whole bearded man stuff).

I don't have to meet that challenge, since I didn't claim you cannot conceive of a MGB.

The fact that you want me to prove it is close enough.

But since you worded it as a challenge, I will give it a go after this post, just because I can't let up a challenge.

Yes. Dazzle me.

How about no, we kept this "bearded guy" thing in mind as a defeater for the justification that atheists and theists alike can imagine the Christian God therefore they can imagine the MGB?

Don't know how much sense is being made there, but uh.

Again, "imaginable therefore conceivable, conceivable therefore possible, possible therefore logical, logical therefore imaginable" is not a demonstration of either imaginability, conceivability, possibility or logical validity. It's a circular argument, a fallacy. If you only address one point, address this one.

Been there, done that. I covered all of that already. Everything you just said is right on the money...no issues there.

At least the stuff that was in bold

Complex to whom? I found it quite simple.

Yeah, but I scanned through your other recent post pertaining to this matter...and your understanding of how this stuff works is a bit...flaky. So it can't be that simple.

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

Ahh, yes. I am sure that when you were drawing up this counter-MOA, you thought you were shaping up this masterful counter-objection.

However, you were/are wrong.

But then again, you were right about one thing; from what I gather, you acknowledge that everything hinges upon the truth value of the first premise.

If the first premise is valid/sound, then the rest of the argument just flows together...like pearls on a string.

As far as my response to your argument below, you've hit a key point, about the whole "nothingness" idea. I will create a thread within the next week or so pertaining to it...but anyways, let me show why your argument is wrong.

And now for the challenge you issued, consider the following argument:

1) 1. It is possible that nothing what-so-ever exists.

Justification: We can imagine a complete lack of existence. And if we can imagine it, then it is conceivable; if it is conceivable then it is logical, if it is logical then it is possible; if it is conceivable then it is imaginable. I am imagining it right now. I can imagine it because of the fact that I can conceive it, and the concept doesn't violate any laws of logic. A complete lack of existence is where nothing exists at all, no time, no space, not even a void, the fact that I have described it here, is enough proof that it can be conceived. That it can be conceived means it is logical. And beside, you cannot prove that I am not imagining a complete lack of existence.

2. If it is possible that nothing exists, then a maximally great being do not exist in some possible world.

Justification: If it is possible nothing exists, then no beings (including MGB's) manifest in some possible world (or set of circumstances).

*sigh* The problem with your argument is..

1. The complete lack of existence is impossible (trust me, a thread on this is coming).

but..

2. The lack of existence cannot be impossible in all possible worlds, because existence is possible in THIS WORLD (the actual world).

As long as things exist in this world (the actual world), there is a MGB that could possibly exist in this world.

That was too easy, bruh. Like taking candy from a baby.

[We_Are_VENOM]

It is not possible that a MGB exists. A MGB contradicts itself, and a being that contradicts itself cannot be maximally great.

On the surface, I agree.

A god that is all knowing and can change the future is contradictory.

I wouldn't necessarily say "change the future" per se. God can manipulate the present to get a future outcome which he desires.

But God's foreknowledge and man's free will...those are admittedly tough concepts to harmonize.

A being that is perfect and created imperfect humans is contradictory.

So, if I am perfect, I can't create imperfect milk that will spoil if I decided to do so?

A maximally great being can create a square circle and a married bachelor, both contradictory things.

Actually, not even a MGB can do those things.

A MGB is supposedly omnipotent, but can't do everything.

A MGB can do anything that is within logic. The creation of squared circles or married bachelors are not within the laws of logic..therefore, it cannot be done.

And if a MGB cant do it, no one can do it.

An MGB can't possible exist.

You thought it was gonna be that easy?

[Bust Nak]

Yeah and as I said before, you prove it... prove whether they are, or not... Can you do it?

No, you made the claim, you prove it.

Giving unreasonable challenges doesn't help either.

It's not unreasonable to challenge you to demonstrate your premises.

Again, can you reach inside your brain and demonstrate this lack of thought of a MGB?

Not my problem, I didn't say one way or the other about a lack of thought of a MGB, other than the fact that you cannot demonstrate it.

Oh, well, in that case..

"Prove to me that you cannot imagine a MGB".

So, me pointing out the mere irrationality of your objection is a way to defeat your refutation.

No that wouldn't work, since that isn't a part of my refutation.

Yeah, I've come to accept that you successfully described something that is illogical, but you did not imagine this thing.

What you did..

1. Description: check
2. Logical: unchecked
3. Imagined: unchecked

Right, and that's exactly the problem, you've left Logical and imagined unchecked, and yet somehow expect us to accept that merely checking description was enough proof that you've also checked logical and imagined. Not very consistent thinking.

Again, if you think otherwise, then reach inside your brain and hand me the nonexistent thought of a MGB.

Shifting the burden again.

Until you do that, then keep the "prove you can imagine a MGB" stuff to yourself. Because I can promise you, you will get the flip side of that...every...single...time.

And you'd be guilty of Shifting the burden...every...single...time.

Hmmm..."God's existence is not possible". Didn't you make that claim?

No, I did not.

Soo, you're statement of "God existence is impossible" was not a claim of knowledge? So what was it, a claim of unknowledge/non-knowledge?

I told you exactly what it was - part of an example of a simple and valid argument. You tell me if that qualify as an "unknowledge/non-knowledge" claim in your book.

So again, your statement of "God's existence is not possible", I am attacking whether or not you can conceive of the nonexistence of a MGB of whom existence is impossible.

Why are you attacking that when I never made claims along that line?

How do you know that you aren't imagining a MGB of whom existence is possible, and mistaking it for a MGB whose existence isn't possible? (analogous to the whole bearded man stuff).

That's because I made sure to imagine a cartoonish bearded man in the sky, but that doesn't imply one way or the other whether it is possible to imagine the MGB or not.

The fact that you want me to prove it is close enough.

I'll take that as an admittance that you accept that I never made the claim.

Been there, done that. I covered all of that already. Everything you just said is right on the money...no issues there.

At least the stuff that was in bold

The stuff in bold, where I pointing out that it is not a demonstration of your premise, is right on the money? Well, that was easier than expected, I am glad we have written confirmation of you conceding the debate.

[Bust Nak]

1. The complete lack of existence is impossible (trust me, a thread on this is coming).

Sure. I'll wait. But you are aware that "a complete lack of existence" is just one way of an MGB not existing, right? A trivial alternative would be an eternal universe devoid of any personal beings.

2. The lack of existence cannot be impossible in all possible worlds, because existence is possible in THIS WORLD (the actual world).

So what? That's a red herring fallacy. My argument does not rely on such a premise. Did you misread what I typed again?

[We_Are_VENOM]

No, you made the claim, you prove it.

Prove to me that I have to prove it to you.

It's not unreasonable to challenge you to demonstrate your premises.

"You need to demonstrate your premises" <----is a premise itself.

So prove to me that it is not reasonable for me to demonstrate my premise.

Now, of course, I've already been there and done that...but I want you to prove to me that it is necessary.

Not my problem, I didn't say one way or the other about a lack of thought of a MGB, other than the fact that you cannot demonstrate it.

"You cannot demonstrate it" <---is a claim of knowledge.

Now prove to me that I cannot demonstrate the lack of thought of a MGB.

You've made a claim, and I am asking you to prove it.

No that wouldn't work, since that isn't a part of my refutation.

Your refutation is, unless someone can pull the thought out of there head and hand it to you, then this implies that the person isn't having the thought.

I want proof of such ridiculous implication.

Right, and that's exactly the problem, you've left Logical and imagined unchecked, and yet somehow expect us to accept that merely checking description was enough proof that you've also checked logical and imagined. Not very consistent thinking.

Apparently you missed the "this is what you did" part.

Shifting the burden again.

Your opinion.

I told you exactly what it was - part of an example of a simple and valid argument. You tell me if that qualify as an "unknowledge/non-knowledge" claim in your book.

Ohhh, thats what it was. I thought it was you saying that God's existence was impossible, which you later followed by a syllogism along those same lines on another post.

It was an invalid, unsound syllogism, at that.

Why are you attacking that when I never made claims along that line?

Prove that you aren't thinking about the lack of a MGB's existence.

That's because I made sure to imagine a cartoonish bearded man in the sky, but that doesn't imply one way or the other whether it is possible to imagine the MGB or not.

How do you know that this cartoonish, bearded man in the sky isn't the MGB that is referred to in the MOA?

I'll take that as an admittance that you accept that I never made the claim.

No, take it as when you challenge me to "prove X", you are implying that "X" needs to be proven...and I want proof that X needs to be proven.

The stuff in bold, where I pointing out that it is not a demonstration of your premise, is right on the money? Well, that was easier than expected, I am glad we have written confirmation of you conceding the debate.

That's not what I got out of it. You were right on the money, but not in the way you'd like to have been.