Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument

Post #1

Post by 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..
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
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 #2

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

Justification: The existence of a MGB is conceivable. We can imagine the existence of such a being. And if it is conceivable, it is possible.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

Justification: If a MGB exists, then its existence is manifested in some possible world (or set of circumstances).

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

Justification: Since the existence of a MGB is “necessary” (remember, we can conceive it), 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 must exist in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

Justification: Since the actual world is among “all possible worlds”, then it follows that if a MGB exists in all possible worlds, then the actual world is among the possible worlds at which a MGB exists.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

Justification: Self explanatory

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Justification:
If a MGB exists in the actual world, then a MGB exists in reality, since the actual world is reality.

Ultimate conclusion: If it is even POSSIBLE (which most of you will admit) for a MGB to exist, then a MGB must actually exist…because ALL POSSIBLE NECESSARY TRUTHS must be actually true.

Proposition X cannot be possibly necessarily truth, but actually false…because if it is actually false, it was never possibly necessarily true to begin with.

Oh, and btw, in your attempts to refute the argument, please don’t come with the old “I will plug in X (the tooth fairy) into the argument to demonstrate that the tooth fairy must exist, based on your logic”.

Because that won’t work…use that refutation and I will tell you why.

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world
http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/ ... n%20others.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
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 #3

Post by William »

I personally have no problem with the idea that a Creator [of this reality experience aka "The Physical Universe" ] but I also have no problem with the idea that Christians present as 'The Image of The Creator' [which they refer to as named "God"] is a false image of The Creator.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument

Post #4

Post by Miles »

.


I don't like arguing by way of YouTube, which is why I don't do it, but when the argument is so well put, although a bit annoyingly, I have to ask myself, why should I bother? I shouldn't. So I give you, Why Modal Ontological Argument isn't worth the mind it wastes thinking about it. . . . . . .


..................................



.

User avatar
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 #5

Post by Goat »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:29 pm .

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

Justification: The existence of a MGB is conceivable. We can imagine the existence of such a being. And if it is conceivable, it is possible.
This is an invalid justification. Just because something is conceivable doesn't mean it i s possible. For example, someone conceived of Harry Potter, but that does not mean that Harry Potter is possible.

It appears that all the rest of your assumptions are reliant on this first assumption being able to be true. It's not. Since the first axiom fails , and all is built on the first axiom , everything that comes after
is not relevent.


2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

Justification: If a MGB exists, then its existence is manifested in some possible world (or set of circumstances).

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

Justification: Since the existence of a MGB is “necessary” (remember, we can conceive it), 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 must exist in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

Justification: Since the actual world is among “all possible worlds”, then it follows that if a MGB exists in all possible worlds, then the actual world is among the possible worlds at which a MGB exists.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

Justification: Self explanatory

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Justification:
If a MGB exists in the actual world, then a MGB exists in reality, since the actual world is reality.

Ultimate conclusion: If it is even POSSIBLE (which most of you will admit) for a MGB to exist, then a MGB must actually exist…because ALL POSSIBLE NECESSARY TRUTHS must be actually true.

Proposition X cannot be possibly necessarily truth, but actually false…because if it is actually false, it was never possibly necessarily true to begin with.

Oh, and btw, in your attempts to refute the argument, please don’t come with the old “I will plug in X (the tooth fairy) into the argument to demonstrate that the tooth fairy must exist, based on your logic”.

Because that won’t work…use that refutation and I will tell you why.

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_world
http://faculty.washington.edu/wtalbott/ ... n%20others.
“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

User avatar
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 #6

Post by Dimmesdale »

Goat wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:27 pm
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:29 pm .

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

Justification: The existence of a MGB is conceivable. We can imagine the existence of such a being. And if it is conceivable, it is possible.
This is an invalid justification. Just because something is conceivable doesn't mean it i s possible. For example, someone conceived of Harry Potter, but that does not mean that Harry Potter is possible.

It appears that all the rest of your assumptions are reliant on this first assumption being able to be true. It's not. Since the first axiom fails , and all is built on the first axiom , everything that comes after
is not relevent.
I agree and I'm a theist. This is why I distinguish between "real possibility" and "hypothetical (or theoretical) possibility." The latter resides merely within the imaginative mind. The former actually has ontological grounding. There is a necessity to the possibility in the first case which gives it a depth that theoretical possibility lacks, because it hasn't proven itself.

For example, it is really possible that if I break a fire hydrant water will shoot out of it. This is because hydrants contain water, at a certain pressure, etc. We also have witnessed this happen, so there's precedent to this reality.

However, imagining Harry Potter does not partake of any similar ontological grounding. It isn't that there is an embryo destined to attend an actual Hogwarts, etc. In other words the preconditions don't exist. And if those base conditions don't exist, there is no meaning to saying it is "really possible." It can graduate only to that level if things like magic are really real, and so on. Otherwise, it remains only at the level of the mind.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
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 #7

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Goat wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:27 pm
This is an invalid justification. Just because something is conceivable doesn't mean it i s possible. For example, someone conceived of Harry Potter, but that does not mean that Harry Potter is possible.
Anything 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.
Goat wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:27 pm It appears that all the rest of your assumptions are reliant on this first assumption being able to be true. It's not. Since the first axiom fails , and all is built on the first axiom , everything that comes after
is not relevent.
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.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Banned
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 #8

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:34 pm
I agree and I'm a theist. This is why I distinguish between "real possibility" and "hypothetical (or theoretical) possibility." The latter resides merely within the imaginative mind.
Again, we cannot conceive of impossible notions. If we can conceive it, then it can be achieved in some possible world, even if it isn't the actual world that we live in.
Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:34 pm The former actually has ontological grounding. There is a necessity to the possibility in the first case which gives it a depth that theoretical possibility lacks, because it hasn't proven itself.

For example, it is really possible that if I break a fire hydrant water will shoot out of it. This is because hydrants contain water, at a certain pressure, etc. We also have witnessed this happen, so there's precedent to this reality.

However, imagining Harry Potter does not partake of any similar ontological grounding. It isn't that there is an embryo destined to attend an actual Hogwarts, etc. In other words the preconditions don't exist.
But there are some possible worlds at which those preconditions would exist. Namely, different laws of nature, different universes operating under different natural laws.

It is conceivable, it is possible.
Dimmesdale wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:34 pm And if those base conditions don't exist, there is no meaning to saying it is "really possible." It can graduate only to that level if things like magic are really real, and so on. Otherwise, it remains only at the level of the mind.
Things which aren't possible cannot be conceived....things that are possible can be conceived...which is why I'd invite you to think of a one-sided stick. Can you do it? No...because it is not possible, therefore it cannot be conceived.

However, you can conceive the idea of Harry Potter and everything that goes in in the story..because under a set of circumstances (whatever they may be), it can happen...it is possible.

But that is still a separate question as to whether it is actually true, which it isn't.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument

Post #9

Post by Tcg »

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #1]

This argument for the existence of God and all other similar arguments reveal a flaw in the claims of the Bible and a failure of the God that supposedly exists:
Romans 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20a For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
If the above passage were true humans wouldn't need to argue on God's behalf. It claims that God has made his existence plain. The fact that the OP needs to argue for God reveals that fact that the above passage is false and that God has failed to make his existence clear.

This is of course perfectly consistent with a God created by humans. That kind of God must rely on humans for... well... for everything... and it does.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
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 #10

Post by Dimmesdale »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:14 pm
Again, we cannot conceive of impossible notions. If we can conceive it, then it can be achieved in some possible world, even if it isn't the actual world that we live in.
Still disagree. I am with you that we cannot conceive of logical absurdities like square circles. However, I likewise am not sure that we can conceive of things that, on a surface level, appear possible, but, if you go into the details, may very well not be.

For instance, I can conceive of a substance like water, that can sustain organic beings, but also be used as a fuel for space engines. I can use my imagination and "conceive" such a thing. Problem is, if such a thing were real, we would have to do a lot more homework. We would have to, for instance, design a molecular, chemical structure for said substance that actually worked in the way that we imagined. It is very possible that such a thing, although conceivable on a surface level, dissolves into absurdity because we can't realize it once we get down to the nitty-gritty of it. The devil's in the details in other words, and it could very well be that such a substance is not possible at all. No more possible than a square circle.

Post Reply