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]

This is the oft used cry when the argument is shown to be flawed.

This example has direct bearing on your imagined MGB. If you can't even imagine a perfect circle, how in the world can you imagine a perfect being?

Remember, we are playing by YOUR rules in this case. You claim if you can imagine something, it can exist. Now we are showing that you can't even imagine a perfect circle because of your own insistence that we need to be able to draw our imaginings. You are the one that brought us down this rabbit hole when it was pointed out that others CAN imagine all sorts of absurd things that are not possible in this world. Remember the whole one side stick? You were trying to prove I couldn't imagine one because I couldn't draw one. I then drew one, but that wasn't good enough.

Well, now your own argument has come home to roost. If you can't draw a perfect circle, then you can't have imagined one. If you can't even imagine a perfect circle, you certainly can't imagine a perfect being. Unless maybe you want to take a stab at drawing an MGB now?

Face it, your attempts to shoot holes in others arguments here are now shooting yourself in the foot.

So basically...

1. Because you can't imagine a perfect circle (which I never said, but just for arguments sake).

2. Therefore, you can't imagine a perfect God.

Text book example of a non sequitur.

There is a flaw in your logic, is what I am trying to say

[benchwarmer]

So basically...

1. Because you can't imagine a perfect circle (which I never said, but just for arguments sake).

2. Therefore, you can't imagine a perfect God.

Text book example of a non sequitur.

There is a flaw in your logic, is what I am trying to say

No. You've completely missed the point or are deciding to ignore it.

According to YOU:

If something can be imagined, then asking someone to draw it is acceptable, otherwise you won't believe them.

Now, I asked you to draw a perfect circle which you failed to do. Therefore, it seems you can't imagine one by YOUR rules.

Ergo, there's no way, according to YOUR logic, that you could possibly imagine an MGB. You can't even prove you are imagining a perfect circle by your own standards and did not even try to draw an MGB.

We no longer have any need to demonstrate your original argument is flawed. You have done it to yourself. Congrats! Thread over.

[We_Are_VENOM]

No. You've completely missed the point or are deciding to ignore it.

According to YOU:

If something can be imagined, then asking someone to draw it is acceptable, otherwise you won't believe them.

Now, I asked you to draw a perfect circle which you failed to do. Therefore, it seems you can't imagine one by YOUR rules.

Ergo, there's no way, according to YOUR logic, that you could possibly imagine an MGB. You can't even prove you are imagining a perfect circle by your own standards and did not even try to draw an MGB.

We no longer have any need to demonstrate your original argument is flawed. You have done it to yourself. Congrats! Thread over.

To be honest, I can care less about a perfect circle.

Plain and simple. Simple and plain.

Again, whether or not I can imagine a perfect circle doesn't have anything to do with the fact that I can and do imagine a MGB.

Now, you can continue wasting your time on that nonsense all you want...but I refuse to waste another brain cell on this "perfect circle" stuff.

[benchwarmer]

Again, whether or not I can imagine a perfect circle doesn't have anything to do with the fact that I can and do imagine a MGB.

Great, then draw an MGB for us. If you can't, apparently you can't imagine one either. That's YOUR logic.

[William]

Again, whether or not I can imagine a perfect circle doesn't have anything to do with the fact that I can and do imagine a MGB.

Great, then draw an MGB for us. If you can't, apparently you can't imagine one either. That's YOUR logic.

This is where religion becomes false - when it creates images of "God" - all images of "God" are by that very fact, false images...

[Bust Nak]

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

Easy enough: if the person making a claim expects his opponent to prove that claim, he is making argument from ignorance is a fallacy in informal logic that asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.

"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, I didn't make the claim that you cannot demonstrate the lack of thought of a MGB. Is there a typo? How about I demonstrate again that you have yet to demonstrate that the MGB is possible or imaginable instead? Because that was the claim I made.

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.

Nop, that's implication not a part of my refutation either. My refutation is, unless someone can pull the thought out of their head and hand it to me, or demonstrate it in some other way, then the premise is unproven. Note the difference between unproven and "isn't."

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

I remember marking that claim, but what does that have to do with anything you said here? You do understand the difference between "you haven't proven X" and "X is false," right?

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.

Well, try harder next time to follow along next time.

It was an invalid, unsound syllogism, at that.

Woah, let me get this straight, you think: God's existence is impossible therefore God does not exist, is invalid?!

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

But I am thinking about the lack of a MGB's existence... Why are you asking me to prove otherwise?

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

Because this cartoonish, bearded man doesn't fit the definition, lacking necessarily existence.

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

That fine, but it still doesn't amount to me claiming X is false.

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.

Okay, I am kinda curious as to what you actually got out of it other than what I actually typed.

[Bust Nak]

No, I wasn't aware of that. And from what I read below; still not.

An eternal universe devoid of any personal beings, does not contain any beings, including maximally great ones. That's what the word "devoid" means.

No, I read correctly...

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

The first premise is false. So we can't even get past premise 1 before your argument begins unraveling.

You said "the lack of existence cannot be impossible in all possible worlds." Explain what you meant by that, in particular what does that have to my premise "it is possible that nothing what-so-ever exists."

Your argument is unsound/invalid, is what I am trying to say.

Unsound? I will wait for your new thread, but invalid? Make you case. Which step doesn't follow?

[Kenisaw]

Venom tried to pull this same baloney on me as well. Moving the goal posts from imagining it to drawing it. Even when I managed that, Venom claimed to not see anything. Every time an argument is shown to be faulty or full of holes, a claim of ignorance or not understanding is brought forth like clockwork. I'm sure it's clear to readers what's going on.

First of all, I've yet to see a squared circle from you or anyone.

Second, I cannot imagine a squared circle...and since you apparently can (and you can't take the thought out of your head and hand it to me), then draw it, so I can see.

That way, I can refrain from using the whole "squared circle" examples

Ahh, so the standard is now that is has to be seen, not just imagined, is that what you are saying? Great, show me your god being and we don't have to have this conversation anymore.

Your rules, not mine....

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

I'll be me aparaphrasing here and there...

"If it can be imagined, it can possibly exist, and how bout that, we can imagine good ol God there exists, and don't it beat all, there he him does, just cause we did. Imagine it."

That's as goofy a notion as I've ever known, other'n that time there, Trump got put him in the White House.

I can image the pretty thing there'll let me take nekkid pictures of er and post em up on the internet. But don't that tear it, she won't. And she's hotter'n her a two dollar pistol.

To image a god exists, under common definitions therebouts, absolutely, don't show that God does in fact exist.

This entire OP is built in the world of make believe. I can image grampaw and gramaw never died. But what do I make of their headstones?

I claim no nefarioushesness - This OP is an attempt to import into reality what only exists in wishful thinking. It seeks to declare the objective evidence of a god, by using us a subjective means to get us all at it.

Godss don't exist just cause we hope they do. Or imagine (pretend) they do*.

OP has failed to offer even one scant, emperical, objective proof of a god's existence other'n, " Let's us all pretend he does". "For it is, it is we can image us all that it is, he does".

*That's it a rhetorical 'pretend' there, based on the lack of confirmable evidence about it. I trust the believer ain't pretending to believe.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Great, then draw an MGB for us. If you can't, apparently you can't imagine one either. That's YOUR logic.

Unwarranted challenge; because no one is saying that in order to believe it, you have to see it. After all, theists have been believing in and providing arguments for the existence of God for centuries, without one single drawing of this being needed to be presented to us, or anyone else.

The point was, I cannot draw an unembodied mind (which is what God is). However, I can prove God's existence with logic and reasoning, which in effect brings forth its possibility.

Which is contrary to you (or anyone else) being able to use logic and reasoning to prove a squared circles existence, OR imagine it.