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]

Reading comprehension, old friend. Re-read what you said to me, and what I said to you as it pertains to this matter.

Well, it doesn't.

Inadequate response to what I said.

There isn't a typo now sounded a lot like accepting there was a typo.

No, it was me bypassing the red herrings and getting back on track with your invalid argument.

Then you should be able to prove it, go ahead.

Been there, done that.

Yep, and that's a circular argument followed by shifting the burden, just like I said.

Prove the argument is circular.

How about this answer: I don't know, I don't want to speculate, nor do I want to make claims that I am unable/unwilling to support.

How are you not gonna know whether you can imagine a MGB? Either you can, or you can't.

But, instead of wasting my time pondering why you can/cannot imagine something...I will just go ahead and take the W

And to give it a final death blow; prove that you don't know whether you can imagine a MGB.

Ha, so you knew there was an easy way out and still thought to ask me that question?

But there isn't an easy way out...because..

A. As I said, I will take the W because "I don't know" means that the yes or no options (with the implications) terrified you into playing it "safe", which is something you don't need to do if you had the truth on your side.

B. Instead of challenging you to prove to me you can't think of a MGB, I will just challenge you to prove to me that you don't know whether you can think of a MGB.

Either way, you are in a no winning situation here, because you can't prove to me, one way or the other.

But I care what you call it, or rather, not call it: it's not invalid.

Still gnawing away at that bone, are you? Its over, amigo

*Facepalm* Yes, this is exactly why the argument is valid. Read what you presented here again very slowly, in particular this last bit you highlighted.

*reads it very slowly*. Ok, I read it. P1 is still false.

But if all of the premises are true, then would the conclusion be true, or would it be false?

If? Unwarranted hypothetical. It is false.

I have my doubts about that, I am still waiting for you to make a new thread like you said you would.

I am waiting on the smoke to clear and the dust to settle on these two threads first.

Yeah. That was relevant because you claim that atheists and theists alike was able to image god as support for your argument. Where as I made no such claim.

Well, if they imagined the bearded man on the cloud and the man didn't have the omnibutes as described in the argument, then they are apparently not thinking of a MGB.

I tried to point that out to you, but you wanted to keep harping on it...and here we still are.

How about I draw him out? That seemed to be an acceptable proof by your standard?

Sure, you can draw him out, but then I will ask you how do you know that the main doesn't have the omnibutes as described in the argument?

How can I refuse after you said please:

How do you know that that isn't a MGB?

[benchwarmer]

Again, avoiding going around in circles, cutting to the chase:

I don't know about you people, but I cannot imagine a squared circle or 2+2=96 (which are the main two we were discussing).

Well that's on you, not the rest of us.

In fact, it was YOU who insisted that if we can imagine a shape then we must be able to produce a drawing of it. You couldn't produce a perfect circle drawing therefore by YOUR own logic you can NOT imagine a perfect circle either. So if you are not imagining a perfect circle, you must either (1) be imagining things that aren't circles or (2) imagining circles that have straight lines in them. Either way, you have shot yourself in the foot.

As for the 2 + 2 = 96, I already gave a couple ways I can imagine that. Either by using symbol overloading (which is a math gimmick) or by imagining a world run by a nefarious group of 4 pixies that don't allow anything to add to 4. They magically (just like your god apparently does from time to time) change any addition of things that would equal their number into 96 things instead. Only they can be 4. Throw 2 apples in a bowl. Throw 1 more in and you have 3. Throw 1 more in and you have instantly 96. Those darn pixies!!

So now what? Are the band of pixies real because I imagined them? Is 2 + 2 = 96 a real thing now?

Of course not, but that is the ridiculous reasoning we are being sold here.

But I can imagine a MGB. So why can I imagine one and not the others? Because the other two are logically absurd, and logical absurdities cannot exist in reality and therefore cannot be imagined.

You actually haven't shown that you have indeed imagined an MGB. The reason I bring this up is because YOU insist on others demonstrating what they have imagined. Again shooting yourself in the foot. If you did not insist others prove what they can and can't imagine then:

1) You can freely claim you are imagining whatever you like
2) Your line of argument about what can be imagined is 'possible' fails.

Either way, you're sunk.

But things that can exist in reality CAN be imagined.

Well no kidding. However, your argument depends on the opposite: Things that can be imagined can exist in reality. That is an obvious fail.

Dont fight it...embrace it.

I don't embrace silly ideas. I rather prefer to point out to readers how I think some ideas really are silly/illogical and then let them make up their own minds about it.

[benchwarmer]

Sure, you can draw him out, but then I will ask you how do you know that the main doesn't have the omnibutes as described in the argument?

How can I refuse after you said please:

How do you know that that isn't a MGB?

I don't know about Bust Nak, but I know for sure that drawing doesn't have the omnibutes as described in the argument. How do I know? I walked into the other room and the man on the cloud disappeared from my sight. That means it's not omnipresent. When I walked back into the room with my computer it reappeared. This is a rendering of a man on a cloud that is not everywhere at once.

I think readers will also notice that We_Are_VENOM has yet to produce a drawing of this MGB citing reasons of "it's a mind". Well, I thought this MGB was ... you know... maximally great. It should be able to be visible in some form or it would be maximally invisible instead of maximally visible. This of course also points out the deep logical flaw with this MGB. There is serious cherry picking going on when describing what this thing is maximally great at.

[JoeyKnothead]

...It should be able to be visible in some form or it would be maximally invisible instead of maximally visible. This of course also points out the deep logical flaw with this MGB. There is serious cherry picking going on when describing what this thing is maximally great at.

Well, now bout that, we have some sound data to suggest it's maximally great at the hide and go seek. I mean, ain't been tagged in thousands of years. That's a record needs it put in the Guinness'ses book of world records.

Please update your thinking accordingly.

[We_Are_VENOM]

That's funny. You move the goal posts, and claim others are being childish. At least be an adult and admit when you've changed your standards to fit the moment.

Changing the standards? The standard has always been "if it can be imagined/conceived, then it is possible".

That has been the golden standard for the entire argumentation...and thus far, no illogical concepts have been conceived by anyone...but there has been a whole lot words thrown together to make certain stuff "work", which have all been failures.

Taxi-cab fallacy indeed my boy. You said if it could be imagined...your words, not mine.

Yeah, I said it, and I meant it.

The Ontological argument has already been refuted, your failure to admit it does not change that. It has been shown in this thread and others that:
-Omniscience is impossible.
-Omnipotence is impossible.
-Everpresent is impossible.
-The claim that the universe had a cause cannot be substantiated.
-Gods always existing is a logical impossibility.

There isn't anything left to discuss about Ontological.

I already responded to all of that, and until you address what I specifically said as it pertains to what you conjure as "impossible", then there is a lot to discuss about Ontological.

[We_Are_VENOM]

That doesn't address what I said: don't bring up points that you aren't willing to address, this holds whether the argument fails or not.

I did more than address what you said; I refuted what you said.

And it isn't enough to say "whether the argument fails or not".

It is more so; "the argument fails....so, not.".

Now that you've repeatedly made this claim, can you prove it?

Been there, done that.

How about no, I wait until you have justified your conclusion before I acknowledge your conclusion? That's how debates usually works.

Like I said, been there, done that. It looks to me as if you are in denial.

The first step in admitting that you (your argument) have a problem, is the acceptance that there is a problem.

It is like an alcoholic or drug addict going to a rehab facility, yet they are still in denial that there is a problem.

"Sir, we can't go forward with the program until you admit you have a problem".

Incorrect, it isn't like saying that, because dead means the same thing as deceased; the same does not hold for "false premise" and "invalid," they mean very different things.

No they don't. If the premise is false, it is invalid. Unless you can share with me a syllogism where a premise is false, yet valid at the same time.

I don't think you can do it.

How about we call it valid instead?

Well, when it becomes valid we will give it its due consideration.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #177]

No they don't. If the premise is false, it is invalid.

A premise can be shown to be false even if it is valid as a premise. For example:

Premise: The Earth is the center of the universe.

This was an assumed truth for centuries (or millennia) and a premise upon which all kinds of conclusions were drawn (especially by the religious). But observation and scientific analysis proved the premise to be false. So the premise was not invalid, but indeed false.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Again, avoiding going around in circles, cutting to the chase:

I rather enjoy running circles around my opponents...

I don't know about you people, but I cannot imagine a squared circle or 2+2=96 (which are the main two we were discussing).
Well that's on you, not the rest of us.

If I give you $2 today, and $2 tomorrow...you can "imagine" the sum total of what I gave you will equal $96 dollars, but I guarandamntee that your bank acct or wallet will read $4 with no exceptions.

In fact, it was YOU who insisted that if we can imagine a shape then we must be able to produce a drawing of it.

Dude, it is either you can draw it, or you can't.

I already admitted that my concept (MGB) cannot be drawn.

But we all know shapes can be drawn, and that people draw shapes...so I asked you to draw a shape. Plain and simple.

If you can't draw it, then admit that you can't draw it and this will all be a dead issue.

Instead, all I see is this recent bombardment of over-sensationalizing stuff that really isn't that serious to begin with.

All I know is; I've wasted too much time on this and will not continue to do so.

You couldn't produce a perfect circle drawing therefore by YOUR own logic you can NOT imagine a perfect circle either.

Nor did/do I care to do so, since whether I can or can't has no effect on the validity/soundness of the MOA (which is what I do care about).

So if you are not imagining a perfect circle, you must either (1) be imagining things that aren't circles or (2) imagining circles that have straight lines in them. Either way, you have shot yourself in the foot.

Not only is this "perfect circle" thing irrelevant, but it actually makes no sense whatsoever. Looks like a double-whammy of wasted time to me.

As for the 2 + 2 = 96, I already gave a couple ways I can imagine that. Either by using symbol overloading (which is a math gimmick)

Run that one by me again.

or by imagining a world run by a nefarious group of 4 pixies that don't allow anything to add to 4.

Yet, 2 of those nefarious pixies on one side of the room, plus (+) the other 2 pixies on the other side of the room, will still equal 4.

LOL!!!!

So, out of all of the numbers you could have come up with in your ridiculous little scenario here, you've chosen the absolute worse number of pixies you could of chosen to make your little point!!

They magically (just like your god apparently does from time to time) change any addition of things that would equal their number into 96 things instead. Only they can be 4. Throw 2 apples in a bowl. Throw 1 more in and you have 3. Throw 1 more in and you have instantly 96. Those darn pixies!!

So now what? Are the band of pixies real because I imagined them? Is 2 + 2 = 96 a real thing now?

Of course not, but that is the ridiculous reasoning we are being sold here.

Hmmm...looks to me as if there are more apples by addition...which is something that you apparently having a difficult time comprehending...based on your above analogy and the example you gave previously with the Jesus feeding the five thousand thing.

You actually haven't shown that you have indeed imagined an MGB. The reason I bring this up is because YOU insist on others demonstrating what they have imagined. Again shooting yourself in the foot. If you did not insist others prove what they can and can't imagine then:

1) You can freely claim you are imagining whatever you like
2) Your line of argument about what can be imagined is 'possible' fails.

Either way, you're sunk.

As long as I've defined a logically coherent concept (which is what I did), then that alone is enough to "show" that I can imagine it...because that which is illogical cannot be imagined.

Well no kidding. However, your argument depends on the opposite: Things that can be imagined can exist in reality. That is an obvious fail.

I am trying to figure out how "things that can be imagined can exist in reality" is the opposite of my argument, which that is in fact the entire base of the argument.

SMH.

I don't embrace silly ideas. I rather prefer to point out to readers how I think some ideas really are silly/illogical and then let them make up their own minds about it.

That's right...every idea is silly if there is a "G" word implication to it. Taxi cab fallacy.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #177]

No they don't. If the premise is false, it is invalid.

A premise can be shown to be false even if it is valid as a premise. For example:

Premise: The Earth is the center of the universe.

This was an assumed truth for centuries (or millennia) and a premise upon which all kinds of conclusions were drawn (especially by the religious). But observation and scientific analysis proved the premise to be false. So the premise was not invalid, but indeed false.

Keywords: "assumed truth".

If the premise was proven to be false then it was never true to begin with.

invalid..

not valid: a : being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law an invalid assumption declared the will invalid.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invalid

[We_Are_VENOM]

I don't know about Bust Nak

You know, for once we agree on something...because I don't know about that guy, either.

, but I know for sure that drawing doesn't have the omnibutes as described in the argument. How do I know? I walked into the other room and the man on the cloud disappeared from my sight. That means it's not omnipresent. When I walked back into the room with my computer it reappeared. This is a rendering of a man on a cloud that is not everywhere at once.

"Because I cannot see it, it isn't there". That's what I got out of it.

Non sequitur.

Your conclusion does not follow, is what I am trying to say.

I think readers will also notice that We_Are_VENOM has yet to produce a drawing of this MGB citing reasons of "it's a mind".

Let those same readers notice when I admitted that minds cannot be drawn. It is not possible to draw a mind...so forgive me for having the inability to do the impossible.

Well, I thought this MGB was ... you know... maximally great. It should be able to be visible in some form or it would be maximally invisible instead of maximally visible. This of course also points out the deep logical flaw with this MGB. There is serious cherry picking going on when describing what this thing is maximally great at.

You are trying soooo very hard to make this all work for you, aren't you? LOL.