.
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 #151Hmm. I don't recall making a claim that I expect you (my opponent) to prove that claim. Try again.
You stated I need to prove that I can imagine a MGB. I'd like proof that I need to prove that to you, sir.
Sure, you can do that, if you want to waste your time..because I will reject your demonstration, because I am of the opinion that I did prove it...and if you don't like my justifications, then we just have to agree to disagree.
I already took the "demonstrate it in some other way" option. If that isn't good enough for you, then I can't help you.Bust Nak wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 5:17 am 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."
My argument stands..it is possible for a MGB to exist, because the existence of a MGB is conceivable.
Prove it? Because the concept of a MGB is coherent, and no laws of logic are being violated based on the mere concept.
I see no qualms with a being of whom knows the truth value of all propositions (omniscient), can do anything logically possible (omnipotent), and if active and in control everywhere at all times (omnipresent)....and one of whom never began to exist (eternal, existing necessarily).
If you think otherwise, then enlighten me...if not,
Yup, I understand the difference. Next.
Well, you have a false premise with a false conclusion...why wouldn't I think it is invalid?
But, "I am imagining a MGB when I conceive the thought of God". Why are you asking me to prove I can think of something?
If God manifests himself as a cartoonish, bearded man...that does fit the definition, giving it necessarily existence.
Irrelevant, because the claim that you did make needs to be proven, which is what I await.
Don't remember. I am beyond that as of right now.
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 #152Clarification unwarranted. The argument is still fails for previously given reasons.
Because existence is possible in this world...and in all possible worlds, this world is included in the bunch. Pretty simple, right?
Because, assuming that "from nothing, nothing comes", existence is necessary.
The argument was doomed from Premise 1.
I saw a wildlife video on Youtube where a pregnant gazelle was attacked by wild dogs...and with one bite/slash of the abdomen, the baby gazelle dropped out and was immediately devoured by the hungry wild dogs.
I said all of that to say this; your Premise 1 of the argument was the baby gazelle.
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 #153I was not implying that it is the standard...I am merely stating that since shapes can be drawn, to draw the shape...because it is bad enough that the mere concept is incoherent..but if you still want to maintain that you can imagine a incoherent concept, then draw it for me.
It is more of a favor being asked, not a standard. But of course, you or anyone else can't draw it or imagine it...so the whole thing is useless, anyway.
Just more red herrings being added to the already huge pile of other red herrings.
The argument can't be refuted so we've stooped to childish, elementary school levels.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2282
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 1952 times
- Been thanked: 734 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #154Hey, it was your idea. You are basically arguing with yourself now. It's quite amusing to watch actually. One side of you is challenging your interlocuters to draw their imagined ideas or you won't take them seriously. The other side of you is crying "unwarranted challenge" when the same thing is turned back on you.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 3:24 pmUnwarranted challenge;benchwarmer wrote: ↑Mon May 03, 2021 11:02 pm
Great, then draw an MGB for us. If you can't, apparently you can't imagine one either. That's YOUR logic.
Face it, asking others to draw their imaginings in order to prove they imagined it was a bad idea. Clearly you didn't think ahead where this would go.
When you won't even meet your own standards in a debate, you have lost IMO.
Yes, we know that. However, YOU decided it was a good challenge to make us draw our imaginings. Oops.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 3:24 pm 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.
If you hadn't done that, you wouldn't be in your current pickle. Your only option now is to remove that necessity (of requiring others to draw their ideas) which of course will also destroy your line of argumentation.
Either way, you appear to be sunk.
Yes, we all know you can't draw it. That's why your hypocrisy is so clear to readers. You can't meet your own challenge.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 3:24 pm The point was, I cannot draw an unembodied mind (which is what God is)
Well, proceed. We're waiting.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 3:24 pm However, I can prove God's existence with logic and reasoning, which in effect brings forth its possibility.
We have left logic and reasoning in the dust. We are only playing by your rules now. Draw it or you didn't imagine it. Period.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 3:24 pm Which is contrary to you (or anyone else) being able to use logic and reasoning to prove a squared circles existence, OR imagine it.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2282
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 1952 times
- Been thanked: 734 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #155Yes, and you were challenged to draw a perfect circle which is a shape. You failed. Or are you now contending that a perfect circle isn't a shape? When you realized you couldn't actually do it, you cried "Red Herring" and tried to move on. This is of course after you "Moved the goalposts" on the rest of us. Now you are attempting "Special Pleading" and pretending your own logic doesn't apply to you. How many fallacies are we going to cover in this thread? You are committing them like they are yummy candy.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 4:04 pm I was not implying that it is the standard...I am merely stating that since shapes can be drawn, to draw the shape
Venom: Draw it or I don't believe you!
Venom: I can't draw it, unwarranted challenge!
- 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 #156I explained why your challenge was unwarranted. No need in patting yourself on the back when you've accomplished nothing as far as refutation of the argument is concerned.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 5:48 pm
Hey, it was your idea. You are basically arguing with yourself now. It's quite amusing to watch actually. One side of you is challenging your interlocuters to draw their imagined ideas or you won't take them seriously. The other side of you is crying "unwarranted challenge" when the same thing is turned back on you. Face it, asking others to draw their imaginings in order to prove they imagined it was a bad idea. Clearly you didn't think ahead where this would go.
If you read my response to Kenisaw, I stated that my request for you to draw it was not a "standard"...it was a playful request for you to draw the shape, and in that way I could refrain from using the "you can't imagine a squared circle" contention.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 5:48 pm When you won't even meet your own standards in a debate, you have lost IMO.
You are taking this too serious here, and it really isn't that serious, brotha.
Shapes can/has been drawn throughout history, from the simplest of a circle to the complexity of a pyramid.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 5:48 pm Yes, we know that. However, YOU decided it was a good challenge to make us draw our imaginings. Oops. If you hadn't done that, you wouldn't be in your current pickle. Your only option now is to remove that necessity (of requiring others to draw their ideas) which of course will also destroy your line of argumentation.
Either way, you appear to be sunk
I am simply asking you to draw a shape at the end of the day...I mean, we both know you can't...so I don't even see why you are acting so gung ho right now as if you've accomplished something.
I may not be able to draw my concept (MGB), but I can prove that it is a logical concept based on the fact that we can conceive/imagine it.
And we both know that you cannot draw or imagine your illogical concept...so why not just admit that it can't be done instead of playing the childish games?
Show me where I said "because you cannot draw it, it cannot exist".benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 5:48 pm
Yes, we all know you can't draw it. That's why your hypocrisy is so clear to readers. You can't meet your own challenge.
Been there, done that.
But I never said that though. *sigh*benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 5:48 pm
We have left logic and reasoning in the dust. We are only playing by your rules now. Draw it or you didn't imagine it. Period.
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 #157As I said before, I could care less about a perfect circle. I don't know if there is a such thing...maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Doesn't matter to me either way.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 6:04 pmYes, and you were challenged to draw a perfect circle which is a shape. You failed. Or are you now contending that a perfect circle isn't a shape? When you realized you couldn't actually do it, you cried "Red Herring" and tried to move on. This is of course after you "Moved the goalposts" on the rest of us. Now you are attempting "Special Pleading" and pretending your own logic doesn't apply to you. How many fallacies are we going to cover in this thread? You are committing them like they are yummy candy.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 4:04 pm I was not implying that it is the standard...I am merely stating that since shapes can be drawn, to draw the shape
Venom: Draw it or I don't believe you!
Venom: I can't draw it, unwarranted challenge!
However, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with my ability to imagine a MGB.
The sooner you realize that, the better.
The fact of the matter is; it is possible for a MGB to exist, which again, is what unbelievers would typically have no problem admitting...but once it is pointed out to them the implications of such things being true, now all of a sudden they want to now question the possibility of a MGB existing.
1. It is possible that a MGB exists <---if there is any defeater of this premise out there, I haven't seen it yet.
I am not dealing with any more of your perfect circles or anything else...I am sticking to the argument as I am quite weary of this growing piles of red herrings that...you in particular, insists on stacking.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2282
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 1952 times
- Been thanked: 734 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #158Patting myself on the back?? I'm simply showing the flaws in your line of argumentation. No back patting necessary.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 7:02 pm I explained why your challenge was unwarranted. No need in patting yourself on the back when you've accomplished nothing as far as refutation of the argument is concerned.
That's odd, you've made the same 'playful' request to multiple people now.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 7:02 pm If you read my response to Kenisaw, I stated that my request for you to draw it was not a "standard"...it was a playful request for you to draw the shape, and in that way I could refrain from using the "you can't imagine a squared circle" contention.
Remember this?
Didn't sound too playful. Sounded like the screech of goal post movement. Now that the spotlight is back on you because of this, it was "playful". Right.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:56 pm Tell ya what, draw a picture of a one-sided stick and share it with the "class". Until you do that, I am not going to entertain any of, in my opinion, such foolishness.
First, I'm not your "brotha", so kindly refrain.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 7:02 pm You are taking this too serious here, and it really isn't that serious, brotha.
Second, how can you possibly know how serious I am being? Just because many of use are showing serious flaws in your line of reasoning doesn't mean we are all of a sudden 'taking things seriously'. What we are doing is responding to your arguments. This is a debate site after all. If there was no disagreement and banter back and forth this site would be boring.
Again, transference of emotion. I'm not being 'gung ho' I'm simply pointing out the obvious problems with the current line of reasoning. Only readers will know if anything has been accomplished. I'm sure they are busy munching their popcorn and maybe learning something from one/both/neither of us.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 7:02 pmShapes can/has been drawn throughout history, from the simplest of a circle to the complexity of a pyramid.benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 5:48 pm Yes, we know that. However, YOU decided it was a good challenge to make us draw our imaginings. Oops. If you hadn't done that, you wouldn't be in your current pickle. Your only option now is to remove that necessity (of requiring others to draw their ideas) which of course will also destroy your line of argumentation.
Either way, you appear to be sunk
I am simply asking you to draw a shape at the end of the day...I mean, we both know you can't...so I don't even see why you are acting so gung ho right now as if you've accomplished something.
Well I can conceive of a one sided stick. So well in fact I provided a concept rendering of it and even described in detail how I could use if for nefarious purposes. If I can describe something ludicrous, surely I have imagined it. I certainly didn't find a real one sided stick on the side of the road.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 7:02 pm I may not be able to draw my concept (MGB), but I can prove that it is a logical concept based on the fact that we can conceive/imagine it.
When you found that inconvenient for your narrative, you opted (as clearly shown here) for the special pleading fallacy.
IMHO, I think a better tactic to take would have been to try and show some evidence for the MGB you have imagined rather than trying to disprove what other people can imagine. I certainly cannot provide any evidence for a one sided stick so you providing evidence of an MGB would surely win the day and be a feather in your cap for persuading people to your side of the debate.
And there we go right back to it. Some thinly veiled insults and stamping your feet insisting what others can or can't imagine based on whether we can draw it or not. I thought you said YOU were being playful? I'm not playing games, so...We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 7:02 pm And we both know that you cannot draw or imagine your illogical concept...so why not just admit that it can't be done instead of playing the childish games?
Well, I did quote you above where you said you would not "entertain such foolishness". Are you now saying you believe it's possible for something to exist that I can't manage to draw? Please pick a lane and stick to it.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 7:02 pm Show me where I said "because you cannot draw it, it cannot exist".
Well, you said something close enough, those are your words I quoted above. If you won't "entertain my foolishness" because I won't "share with the class" a drawing, what else am I supposed to think?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 7:02 pmBut I never said that though. *sigh*benchwarmer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 5:48 pm We have left logic and reasoning in the dust. We are only playing by your rules now. Draw it or you didn't imagine it. Period.
How about be absolutely clear what is required to prove to you that I have imagined anything? I think that might save us some time. This time remember your rules apply to everyone, you included.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2282
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
- Has thanked: 1952 times
- Been thanked: 734 times
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #160I would agree IF this god requires us to believe in it or face dire consequences. Since the Christian god has that characteristic then it seems the Christian god either 1) Does not exist, 2) Is not 'maximally great' at providing each person the evidence they need to believe, or 3) is perhaps 'maximally great' at not caring or being evil.
This brings other thoughts to mind why this entire MOA is DOA.
If the being is maximally 'great' it must be maximally great at being round, maximally great at being square, maximally great at loving, maximally great at doing evil, etc. In other words, the OP is cherry picking what their preferred god concept is 'maximally great' at and conveniently ignoring all the rest which would render it illogical. Since it's illogical, it cannot be possible (OP's own argument).