.
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 #131No, I wasn't aware of that. And from what I read below; still not.Bust Nak wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:43 pmSure. I'll wait. But you are aware that "a complete lack of existence" is just one way of an MGB not existing, right?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:37 pm 1. The complete lack of existence is impossible (trust me, a thread on this is coming).
Red herring. No relevance.
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.
Your argument is unsound/invalid, is what I am trying to say.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
- Location: St Louis, MO, USA
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #132It is that easy. Your MGB cannot be all knowing, it cannot be all powerful, and it cannot be perfect, because of the logical contradictions that entails. If it is not all knowing then it can't know that what it does is always good. So it can't be all good then. At this point the "maximally great" train has already left the station. If the being can't even be good all the time then it is no better than your average human. Your MGB is Joe Sixpack.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 3:46 pmOn the surface, I agree.
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.
So, if I am perfect, I can't create imperfect milk that will spoil if I decided to do so?
Actually, not even a MGB can do those things.
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.
You thought it was gonna be that easy?
There's also the problem of "possible". The first statement has an assumption in it that is unsupported - It is possible a MGB exists. Really? Says who, and why. Any data or empirical evidence to support that claim? We have nothing supporting the claim that it is even possible. It's the same problem with the concept that if a MGB was possible in another world (or universe), then it would be possible in all worlds (or universes). Again, why. You have to assume that all worlds (or universes) are the same, or at least have the same rules in them. What reason do we have to assume this? None whatsoever. If there is no reason to think it is possible, then there is no reason to think the argument is valid. And for all the people that have come to this website and posted the ontological argument, no one ever has ever shown why it should be considered possible in the first place.
Being able to think of it doesn't make it possible. We've already mentioned square circles, we can think of that. Being able to think of something does not give it credence in reality.
It really is that easy.
- 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 #133Well, when you enlighten me on this alleged "logical contradiction", then it will be considered.
The conclusion "if it is not all knowing then it can't know that what it does is always good" came wayy out of left field with no point of origin.Kenisaw wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 2:44 am If it is not all knowing then it can't know that what it does is always good. So it can't be all good then. At this point the "maximally great" train has already left the station. If the being can't even be good all the time then it is no better than your average human. Your MGB is Joe Sixpack.
It is an empty claim, is what I am trying to say.
See justification.
See justification...because it sounds like you are asking something equivalent to "how much does the immaterial spirit weigh"?.
Justifications were given.Kenisaw wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 2:44 am We have nothing supporting the claim that it is even possible. It's the same problem with the concept that if a MGB was possible in another world (or universe), then it would be possible in all worlds (or universes). Again, why. You have to assume that all worlds (or universes) are the same, or at least have the same rules in them. What reason do we have to assume this? None whatsoever. If there is no reason to think it is possible, then there is no reason to think the argument is valid. And for all the people that have come to this website and posted the ontological argument, no one ever has ever shown why it should be considered possible in the first place.
I didn't know "we" thought of squared circles? Have you thought of one? Can you draw it for me so I can see what you can conceive?
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
- Location: St Louis, MO, USA
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #134My bad, I thought someone already pointed this out. So, if a MGB is all knowing, then it knows all the past and the future, because it knows all. If it knows the future, then there is no way it could change it's mind about what it will do in the future, because if it were going to change it's mind it would already know that. So your MGB cannot change anything it is going to do in the future, which means it can't be all powerful. It is existing deterministically, which doesn't sound too powerful to me. There's goes perfection out the window too. Perfection was shot anyway because something cannot be perfect if it creates imperfectly, and that is certainly the case with you and me, eh?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 6:43 pmWell, when you enlighten me on this alleged "logical contradiction", then it will be considered.
Again my bad, I thought you were aware of this: Unfortunately for any god, it doesn't know what it doesn't know. The MGB could have been created by another god, and that other god created the MGB to think that it has always existed and knows all. So the MGB thinks it knows all, but doesn't, because it doesn't know about the other god. The MGB can't rule out the possibility of the other god either, because it has to admit it doesn't know what it doesn't know. The other god is in the same situation. There could be a third god that pulled the same trick that the other god pulled on the MGB. Omniscience is logically impossible. You don't know what you don't know.The conclusion "if it is not all knowing then it can't know that what it does is always good" came wayy out of left field with no point of origin.Kenisaw wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 2:44 am If it is not all knowing then it can't know that what it does is always good. So it can't be all good then. At this point the "maximally great" train has already left the station. If the being can't even be good all the time then it is no better than your average human. Your MGB is Joe Sixpack.
It is an empty claim, is what I am trying to say.
Which is why the MGB can't be all good, because it can't know for sure that it knows everything required to be good all the time.
That's already been shot full of holes. It's already been shown that conceiving of something does not mean it has to be possible. The MGB has been shown to be illogical, just like a square circle. In your OP you defined the MGB has having incompatible properties that can't possibly exist. So your claim that a MGB is possible because it can be imagined is unsupported.
Don't worry, I already know there isn't any empirical evidence or data for all this. If there were, humans wouldn't have spent the last 2000 years trying to prove the existence of gods through philosophy. The raw data would be up on very billboard across the planet.
Yes, and summarily shot down. If the answer to my question is that "I thought of these possibilities", then that is no reason to assume they are true for the purposes of this discussion. You are making it up as you go along (or at least the original person who dreamed this up did and you are just reiterating it). It is assumed that an MGB is possible (which it has already shown that it can't exist as stated), and that it can exist in some possible world (although we have no reason given as why we should think such a world exists), and that these possible worlds have to contain our universe.Justifications were given.Kenisaw wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 2:44 am We have nothing supporting the claim that it is even possible. It's the same problem with the concept that if a MGB was possible in another world (or universe), then it would be possible in all worlds (or universes). Again, why. You have to assume that all worlds (or universes) are the same, or at least have the same rules in them. What reason do we have to assume this? None whatsoever. If there is no reason to think it is possible, then there is no reason to think the argument is valid. And for all the people that have come to this website and posted the ontological argument, no one ever has ever shown why it should be considered possible in the first place.
It's like you think that the possibility of an MGB automatically gives rise to possible worlds. There's no reason to think that one automatically makes the other one true. The whole proposition is an attempt to define into existence that which can't possibly exist and for which there is exactly zero empirical data supporting it in the real world.
It just has to be imagined in order for it to be possible, remember? Your rules, not mine....I didn't know "we" thought of squared circles? Have you thought of one? Can you draw it for me so I can see what you can conceive?
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2287
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 1959 times
- Been thanked: 739 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #135Venom 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.Kenisaw wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 9:07 pmIt just has to be imagined in order for it to be possible, remember? Your rules, not mine....We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 6:43 pm I didn't know "we" thought of squared circles? Have you thought of one? Can you draw it for me so I can see what you can conceive?
I propose a counter challenge: Venom, please draw us a perfect circle (absolutely perfect, down to the atomic level). If you can't, I guess that means you can't imagine one? And if you can't imagine one, then your imagined circles are squared (as in not perfectly round) no?
I look forward to "I don't get it", "prove I can't imagine it", "this makes no sense", etc.
- 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 #136To sum up the argument and to also borrow from St. Anslem...God is the greatest conceivable being.Kenisaw wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 9:07 pm My bad, I thought someone already pointed this out. So, if a MGB is all knowing, then it knows all the past and the future, because it knows all. If it knows the future, then there is no way it could change it's mind about what it will do in the future, because if it were going to change it's mind it would already know that. So your MGB cannot change anything it is going to do in the future, which means it can't be all powerful. It is existing deterministically, which doesn't sound too powerful to me.
You state that since God cannot change his mind because he knows all (which I agree), then the question becomes; can you conceive of a being of whom..
"can change his mind about what he will do in the future, (if he knows the future), because he will already know that".
If the answer is..
1. Yes: Then the being you are thinking of is God.
2. No: Then it isn't conceivable, and it cannot be done.
When we say God is all powerful (omnipotent), we simply mean that God can do all logical things (anything that is logically possible)...and what you are suggesting isn't logical; so that isn't a strike against God's power, it is a testament to the fact that God is completely within logic and reason...which should be a good thing.
And since it isn't logical, you cannot conceive of a being which CAN do it (because if you could, then the being you are conceiving is God).
So, nice try, but fail.
Was this created imperfection by accident, or by choice?
A MGB created by another God would be contingent, and not necessary.Kenisaw wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 2:44 am Again my bad, I thought you were aware of this: Unfortunately for any god, it doesn't know what it doesn't know. The MGB could have been created by another god, and that other god created the MGB to think that it has always existed and knows all. So the MGB thinks it knows all, but doesn't, because it doesn't know about the other god. The MGB can't rule out the possibility of the other god either, because it has to admit it doesn't know what it doesn't know. The other god is in the same situation. There could be a third god that pulled the same trick that the other god pulled on the MGB. Omniscience is logically impossible. You don't know what you don't know.
Which is why the MGB can't be all good, because it can't know for sure that it knows everything required to be good all the time.
*sigh*
What? Where? LOL.
If anything, what you've shown is your misunderstanding of the argument. Because to even consider giving a scenario at which the MGB was created just goes to show your misunderstandings here.
Let me ask you this; can you imagine a squared circle?
Yeah, and people still wouldn't believe. It isn't necessarily about the lack of evidence, it is about the darkness and hardened hearts of the people.Kenisaw wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 2:44 am
Don't worry, I already know there isn't any empirical evidence or data for all this. If there were, humans wouldn't have spent the last 2000 years trying to prove the existence of gods through philosophy. The raw data would be up on very billboard across the planet.
I wouldn't have presented it if I didn't think it was valid/sound.Kenisaw wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 2:44 am Yes, and summarily shot down. If the answer to my question is that "I thought of these possibilities", then that is no reason to assume they are true for the purposes of this discussion. You are making it up as you go along (or at least the original person who dreamed this up did and you are just reiterating it).
So, you really think those objections you presented are worthy of shattering the entire argument?
Please, dont.
Again, as I stated time and time again, because necessary truths are true in all possible worlds.Kenisaw wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 2:44 am , and that it can exist in some possible world (although we have no reason given as why we should think such a world exists), and that these possible worlds have to contain our universe. It's like you think that the possibility of an MGB automatically gives rise to possible worlds. There's no reason to think that one automatically makes the other one true. The whole proposition is an attempt to define into existence that which can't possibly exist and for which there is exactly zero empirical data supporting it in the real world.
Now, props to you for dealing with the mere concept of a MGB and why you think the concept is incoherent...however, the issues you are raising now makes me wonder whether you've been paying attention to anything I've said since the OP...even though the same thing has been covered in the OP.
That is what I am asking you (I asked above as well)...can you imagine a squared circle?
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 #137First of all, I've yet to see a squared circle from you or anyone.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 9:43 pm 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.
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
O <---looks perfect to me.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Sun May 02, 2021 9:43 pm I propose a counter challenge: Venom, please draw us a perfect circle (absolutely perfect, down to the atomic level). If you can't, I guess that means you can't imagine one? And if you can't imagine one, then your imagined circles are squared (as in not perfectly round) no?
I look forward to "I don't get it", "prove I can't imagine it", "this makes no sense", etc.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2287
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 1959 times
- Been thanked: 739 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #138It's not, zoom in. I don't know about your monitor, but mine uses pixels. There is a straight line from one pixel to another. Your 'perfect' circle is not perfect. I guess you CAN imagine circles that have straight lines in them and can NOT imagine a perfect one.
- 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 #139I meannn, even if I cant..so what? Whether I can or cant has no barren on the soundness/validity of the MOA.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 7:02 am It's not, zoom in. I don't know about your monitor, but mine uses pixels. There is a straight line from one pixel to another. Your 'perfect' circle is not perfect. I guess you CAN imagine circles that have straight lines in them and can NOT imagine a perfect one.
Just another red herring...thread has been filled with lots of those, unfortunately.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2287
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 1959 times
- Been thanked: 739 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #140This is the oft used cry when the argument is shown to be flawed.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 10:50 amI meannn, even if I cant..so what? Whether I can or cant has no barren on the soundness/validity of the MOA.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 7:02 am It's not, zoom in. I don't know about your monitor, but mine uses pixels. There is a straight line from one pixel to another. Your 'perfect' circle is not perfect. I guess you CAN imagine circles that have straight lines in them and can NOT imagine a perfect one.
Just another red herring...thread has been filled with lots of those, unfortunately.
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.