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
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 #61

Post by Dimmesdale »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:27 am
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.
Actually... no. I think that's a misuse of the word 'possible.'

There is no possibility for 2+2=4 OR 2+2=5. The word 'possible' here shouldn't even apply. 'Possible' assumes, in one sense at least, uncertainty regarding the result. 'Likelihood' as to outcome. When it comes to math, however, things are pretty much as set in stone as they could get.

There is no possibility that 2+2=4. It is entirely ACTUAL that that is the case.

When it comes to whether an object is 'possible' - that can either mean a) it has always been (or already is now) (or definitely will be) but FROM OUR VANTAGE point, we are unsure, and so we default to talk of "possibility" based on the evidences we currently have. This is entirely provisional but it is regarding an actual object that either has an absolute existence or non-existence.

Or it can mean b) something has a certain 'likelihood' of 'coming to be' (like a raffle). We can thus estimate probabilities for that possibility. That or free will (which we can't quantify).

Other than those two I have no idea what 'possible' could mean.

P.S.,

Below in my other post I realized a third definition for 'possible.' That is, what "reality" can "permit" as rational, and not absurd. If you can think of more, I'm all ears. But these are all I have come up with thus far.
Last edited by Dimmesdale on Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

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 #62

Post by Dimmesdale »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:27 am
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.
A one-sided stick is absurd, and it isn't 'possible.' By 'possible' I mean it cannot be actualized (or actual) because reality does not permit such a thing. I would say it doesn't permit such a thing because reality is a priori rational in essence.

That said, I do not know if certain logically coherent things, are also things that reality can permit. In other words, I do not know whether they are 'possible' or 'impossible.' I simply believe we can imagine, and to some extent conceive of them, in the mind. Beyond that, I have no information to adjudicate the matter.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1956 times
Been thanked: 735 times

Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument

Post #63

Post by benchwarmer »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:48 am
benchwarmer wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:45 pm 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.
It's certainly your perogative to no longer reply. I'm fine with that.

However, you may want to get your eyes checked or clean your monitor. I did in fact draw the stick as requested. Look carefully after the ":" character in the drawing from your perspective.

By the way, if I didn't imagine this stick, how in the world did I write a description of using it on this very website? Did a god of some sort intervene and write my post? Maybe I looked confused so it wrote my reply?

My personal opinion, which I know is practically worthless, is that you can't walk back what you said so now you are fine calling me a liar instead of conceding the point. Oh well. We'll let readers decide what's happening.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
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 #64

Post by William »

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #64]

Isn't [.] more a represented image of 'one side of a stick' rather than a one-sided stick?

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 #65

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:40 am
Actually... no. I think that's a misuse of the word 'possible.'

There is no possibility for 2+2=4 OR 2+2=5. The word 'possible' here shouldn't even apply. 'Possible' assumes, in one sense at least, uncertainty regarding the result. 'Likelihood' as to outcome. When it comes to math, however, things are pretty much as set in stone as they could get.

There is no possibility that 2+2=4. It is entirely ACTUAL that that is the case.
But if it weren't possible, that wouldn't be actually the case. That is the point.

That, followed by the fact that the mere definition of "possible" is something that is able to be done.

We are able to get 4 out of 2+2.

I sincerely doubt that if you were asked "is it possible for 2+2=4", and you are to receive a million dollars upon a correct answer of either yes/no....that you would make such a fuss over this...you will simply answer yes, and collect your money.
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:40 am When it comes to whether an object is 'possible' - that can either mean a) it has always been (or already is now) (or definitely will be) but FROM OUR VANTAGE point, we are unsure, and so we default to talk of "possibility" based on the evidences we currently have. This is entirely provisional but it is regarding an actual object that either has an absolute existence or non-existence.

Or it can mean b) something has a certain 'likelihood' of 'coming to be' (like a raffle). We can thus estimate probabilities for that possibility. That or free will (which we can't quantify).

Other than those two I have no idea what 'possible' could mean.

P.S.,

Below in my other post I realized a third definition for 'possible.' That is, what "reality" can "permit" as rational, and not absurd. If you can think of more, I'm all ears. But these are all I have come up with thus far.
Nah. I am taking an otherwise complicated/complex argument and trying to dumb it down as much as I can. No need to complicate matters further.

The word "possible" here means, in its most basic and simple content, simply means "able to be done".

One does not need to posit any other "possible" definitions or contexts...just take the word at face value and in every day language.

If something isn't possible, then it wouldn't be actualized. 2+2=4 is both actualized, making it "possible" by default. In fact, for something to be actualized, a requirement is for it to be possible.

To deny that point is to be, in my opinion, disingenuous.
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 #66

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:05 am A one-sided stick is absurd, and it isn't 'possible.' By 'possible' I mean it cannot be actualized (or actual) because reality does not permit such a thing. I would say it doesn't permit such a thing because reality is a priori rational in essence.

That said, I do not know if certain logically coherent things, are also things that reality can permit. In other words, I do not know whether they are 'possible' or 'impossible.' I simply believe we can imagine, and to some extent conceive of them, in the mind. Beyond that, I have no information to adjudicate the matter.
Well, that is a problem for you, not me. Do your homework. Find out why, on the flip side, doesn't the same reasoning apply. From where I stand, it only doesn't apply when you don't like where the reasoning takes you.

We cannot conceive NOR imagine things that aren't possible (the absurd). However, we can conceive and imagine things that are possible (rational concepts).

Now, this certainly doesn't mean that "just because we can imagine it, it is true"...not in a contingent since.

But dealing with concepts of necessity, all possible necessary truths must actually be true. No getting around that fact. And a MGB's existence is possible, therefore, a MGB must exist.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

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 #67

Post by Dimmesdale »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:54 pm
But if it weren't possible, that wouldn't be actually the case. That is the point.

That, followed by the fact that the mere definition of "possible" is something that is able to be done.

We are able to get 4 out of 2+2.
I think you can't use the word 'possible' in that way, technically speaking. I think our usage of it amounts to a linguistic misunderstanding and/or equivocation.

I think you can only use 'possible' in reference to things that are realizable in the ways I have already outlined (which I think you should pay attention to). Otherwise, it can only be used as a synonym for something else, like 'actual', but not have the same exact meaning.

Hence, I believe something can indeed be 'actual' without being possible. I stand by that. Instead of saying 2+2=4 is possible, it is more accurate to say it is "real" or "the case." It ain't possible. I can say that with a straight face, actually.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:54 pmI sincerely doubt that if you were asked "is it possible for 2+2=4", and you are to receive a million dollars upon a correct answer of either yes/no....that you would make such a fuss over this...you will simply answer yes, and collect your money.
Well hey, why not? I would prefer to say it is “real” or “the case.” To say so would be to answer the question half-way. I simply wouldn’t carry-over the other connotations (that I’ve already outlined) into the answer. I think I would satisfy most people by simply leaving it at that.

But in the context of the full breadth of ‘possible’, I know it wouldn’t be the answer others, such as yourself, would be looking for….

Very well. I can’t please everyone. I’m sticking to my guns on this one, and assert that I am indeed right and you are wrong.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:54 pmI Nah. I am taking an otherwise complicated/complex argument and trying to dumb it down as much as I can. No need to complicate matters further.
Well… if you don’t care about distinctions in reasonings. :roll:
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:54 pmThe word "possible" here means, in its most basic and simple content, simply means "able to be done".
..And how, pray tell, can “2+2=4” be “able to be done”???

What is “able to be done” is repairing a bicycle, or reformatting a hard drive. THAT is something that is possible in the sense that you move from POTENTIALITY to ACTUALITY. You actually MOVE from something that ISN’T the case, to something that is.

“2+2=4” isn’t an activity in that sense. It’s an eternal proposition that simply is. It doesn’t “become.”
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:54 pmOne does not need to posit any other "possible" definitions or contexts...just take the word at face value and in every day language.
Nope. You’re wrong and I just proved it with the above. Unless you can actually demonstrate to me a fourth definition of ‘possible.’ Then I'll gladly reconsider.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:54 pmIf something isn't possible, then it wouldn't be actualized. 2+2=4 is both actualized, making it "possible" by default. In fact, for something to be actualized, a requirement is for it to be possible.

To deny that point is to be, in my opinion, disingenuous.
I’ve already gone over this with my three definitions of what ‘possible’ might mean, at least according to my perspective. I don’t feel like restating it again. What seems disingenuous to me is ignoring my whole argument and simply asserting “every day language” like it's some sort of infallible rule. I don’t think it is.
Last edited by Dimmesdale on Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

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 #68

Post by Dimmesdale »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:01 pm
Well, that is a problem for you, not me. Do your homework. Find out why, on the flip side, doesn't the same reasoning apply. From where I stand, it only doesn't apply when you don't like where the reasoning takes you.
My problem is that I don't see any reasoning. All I see is a bunch of false premises based on linguistic misunderstanding.

But, that's my perspective. You are fully entitled to your own.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2283
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1956 times
Been thanked: 735 times

Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument

Post #69

Post by benchwarmer »

William wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:58 pm [Replying to benchwarmer in post #64]

Isn't [.] more a represented image of 'one side of a stick' rather than a one-sided stick?
Yes, exactly. That is what any drawing is after all. I'm not sure what the point of asking me to draw it was in the first place other than trying to grasp at something else to avoid conceding the point.

In fact, I could easily turn this around and ask WE_are_Venom to draw the MGB that started this discussion. Any objections to my drawing of the 'stick' will equally apply to the drawing of the MGB. Not that any of this really matters as the original claim was that we could not imagine a one sided stick. I can, and described the use of one. That doesn't mean it's not absurd, it certainly is. Imagining something does not poof it into reality, especially when it's not physically possible in our observable universe.

Anyway, good point William. I agree with you.

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 #70

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:45 pm I think you can't use the word 'possible' in that way, technically speaking.
You go by what you think. I go by what I know.
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:45 pm I think our usage of it amounts to a linguistic misunderstanding and/or equivocation.
The misunderstandings are on your part, not mines. Either God's existence is possible, or impossible.

Don't know what is so hard to understand.
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:45 pm I think you can only use 'possible' in reference to things that are realizable in the ways I have already outlined (which I think you should pay attention to). Otherwise, it can only be used as a synonym for something else, like 'actual', but not have the same exact meaning.
Well, you can continue to "think" whatever you like, that doesn't negate the fact that all possible necessary truths must be actually true.
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:45 pm Hence, I believe something can indeed be 'actual' without being possible.
Please provide an example of something that is actual, without being possible.
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:45 pm I stand by that. Instead of saying 2+2=4 is possible, it is more accurate to say it is "real" or "the case." It ain't possible. I can say that with a straight face, actually.
You can be wrong with a straight face, too.

If your son has two video games and he asks you, "Dad, I have two video games..but is it possible for me to have four video games".

And you say, "Sure, son".

And you go to the store and buys him two video games and gives it to him...and you say, "Now you have four video games".

You've just demonstrated the possibility of 2+2=4 with the purchase of two games.

If that analogy doesn't work for you, then I don't know what to tell ya, sir.
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:45 pm Well hey, why not?
Sure, why not just answer "yes" and collect your money? I know I would.
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:45 pm I would prefer to say it is “real” or “the case.” To say so would be to answer the question half-way. I simply wouldn’t carry-over the other connotations (that I’ve already outlined) into the answer. I think I would satisfy most people by simply leaving it at that.

But in the context of the full breadth of ‘possible’, I know it wouldn’t be the answer others, such as yourself, would be looking for….
Or you can just answer "no", and don't collect a single bill. Hey, the choice is yours.
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:45 pm Very well. I can’t please everyone. I’m sticking to my guns on this one, and assert that I am indeed right and you are wrong.
We all have our opinions, don't we?
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:45 pm Well… if you don’t care about distinctions in reasonings. :roll:
I do care, but red herring semantics is a game I don't like to play.
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:45 pm
..And how, pray tell, can “2+2=4” be “able to be done”???

What is “able to be done” is repairing a bicycle, or reformatting a hard drive. THAT is something that is possible in the sense that you move from POTENTIALITY to ACTUALITY. You actually MOVE from something that ISN’T the case, to something that is.

“2+2=4” isn’t an activity in that sense. It’s an eternal proposition that simply is. It doesn’t “become.”
LOL. In the very example I gave above.

You simply think; "My son has two games, but he wants 4. Is this able to be done? How can I accomplish this?"

After thinking about this for however long, it dawns on you..."Aha, I know how it can be done, I will simply go to the store and buy two more games, because 2+2=4!!!".

You see, it wasn't done at first (with just two games)...But then, it was able to be done with an additional two games, thus...four.

See? Pretty simple, right?
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:45 pm
Nope. You’re wrong and I just proved it with the above. Unless you can actually demonstrate to me a fourth definition of ‘possible.’ Then I'll gladly reconsider.
I don't feel the need to do any more than I've been doing. If you want to stay in this dimension of irrationality that you are in, then I will leave you to it.
Dimmesdale wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:45 pm I’ve already gone over this with my three definitions of what ‘possible’ might mean, at least according to my perspective. I don’t feel like restating it again. What seems disingenuous to me is ignoring my whole argument and simply asserting “every day language” like it's some sort of infallible rule. I don’t think it is.
I stated to you what "possible" means in the context of the argument. There is no need to bring in any additional definitions. The definition, as it pertains to this subject, is what it is.

Unless you can somehow conjure up a reason as to why the existence of a MGB isn't "able to be done" (isn't possible), then all you've done is create red herrings all over the place, positing definitions that has nothing to do with what is going on with the argument.

That is what has been happening thus far.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Post Reply