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..

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #180]

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

invalid..

A premise has no requirement to be true or false when it is stated:

prem·ise
noun
Logic: A previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
"if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true"

Note the word "if" in the example, which allows for the premise to be false (as does the definition). It is not necessary for a premise to be "true to begin with" in order to be a premise. For example, a claim that if something can be conceived then it is possible can be true or false. Simply declaring it to be true is not sufficient to settle the issue.

[Bust Nak]

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 enough to show that you are presented a red herring.

Been there, done that.

No, you were gonna to start a new tread for that, remember? That's yet to happen.

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

That's where empirical evidence comes in. I've just checked your post history, still nothing.

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

First you have to show me that there is a problem.

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.

Easy enough. Here is a syllogism where a premise is false (highlighted in italic,) yet valid at the same time:

My cactus is a man, all men are mortal, therefore my cactus is mortal.

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

It can't "become" valid when it's valid all along.

[Bust Nak]

Inadequate response to what I said.

That is to be expected when I have no idea what you are talking about.

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

What do you mean no? Was there a typo or not?

Prove the argument is circular.

The proof was already provided, repeated here for your continence: I asked you prove that the concept a MGB is coherent, and no laws of logic are being violated based on the mere concept, you said it was logical because you can conceive of the MGB; yet that was the very premise you begin with that lead me to challenge you to prove that the concept a MGB is coherent.

"MGB is conceivable therefore MGB is logic; MGB is logic therefore MGB is conceivable" takes the form of A->B, B->A which is circular.

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

Yes, either one or the other, but I don't know which one.

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

You have my testimony for that.

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.

Right, but now you can do neither, how is that not a winning situation for me?

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

Sure, I assume you gonna let me have the last word some time soon?

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

And that's still not how validity is evaluated.

If? Unwarranted hypothetical. It is false.

But what if it is true?

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

So don't tell me that you've proven something when you are still waiting.

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.

Yes, that's the point. I am glad you got it.

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 about you first accept that one of your challenge has been met first?

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

I told you how even before I drew him out - I know because I've made sure to exclude the relevant feature when I imagined him.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Inadequate response to what I said.

That is to be expected when I have no idea what you are talking about.

Then ask.

What do you mean no? Was there a typo or not?

No.

The proof was already provided, repeated here for your continence: I asked you prove that the concept a MGB is coherent, and no laws of logic are being violated based on the mere concept, you said it was logical because you can conceive of the MGB; yet that was the very premise you begin with that lead me to challenge you to prove that the concept a MGB is coherent.

And that very premise was justified countless times on here to you and others. So, since I feel as if the premise has been justified, it becomes me stating a justified premise...and therefore, no circular reasoning this way.

"MGB is conceivable therefore MGB is logic; MGB is logic therefore MGB is conceivable" takes the form of A->B, B->A which is circular.

Since it is true that conceivable concepts are (must be) logical, then it follows that logical concepts are conceivable.

As long as everything is based on truth, you (in general) cant go wrong.

Yes, either one or the other, but I don't know which one.

Good for you. Great for me. My criteria was; an answer of "I don't know" is just handing me the dub (W)...and I already stated why the dub is mine, based on such an answer.

So, we need not have any more convos about whether I can imagine a MGB

Right, but now you can do neither, how is that not a winning situation for me?

Um, from what I gather; I can still challenge you to "prove" to me that you don't know whether you can think of a MGB. That is still within my repertoire.

But, to issue such a challenge will be me kicking my opponent while he is down.

In the words of Doctor Doom..

"Consider Doom merciful, if you still draw breath".

I am Doctor Doom in this case, is what I am trying to say.

Sure, I assume you gonna let me have the last word some time soon?

Correct, we are just about reaching that point.

And that's still not how validity is evaluated.

Denial.

But what if it is true?

Still an unwarranted hypothetical.

So don't tell me that you've proven something when you are still waiting.

"Been there, done that" <---implies I am not waiting to prove anything.

Yes, that's the point. I am glad you got it.

I've had it since you first made the irrelevant mention of the bearded guy. This was, what...at least a week and a half ago?

How about you first accept that one of your challenge has been met first?

I don't recall denying the fact that you can draw a guy in the cloud.

I told you how even before I drew him out - I know because I've made sure to exclude the relevant feature when I imagined him.

Hmm. So, the MGB as defined in the argument has those features...yet, you admit that the guy you drew doesn't have those features.

I will again point out the irrelevance of your bearded guy scenario. This red herring was pointed out to you a few days ago...glad you are slowly but surely coming to that realization.

And if you aren't, then you need to be.

[We_Are_VENOM]

It is enough to show that you are presented a red herring.

Oh, is it? LOL.

No, you were gonna to start a new tread for that, remember? That's yet to happen.

I provided a little appetizer of it here, though. The main course is the argument, coming to a thread near you.

That's where empirical evidence comes in. I've just checked your post history, still nothing.

First you have to show me that there is a problem.

Check my post history.

Easy enough. Here is a syllogism where a premise is false (highlighted in italic,) yet valid at the same time:

My cactus is a man, all men are mortal, therefore my cactus is mortal.

I can definitely see where the premises is false. Yet, I don't see where the premise is valid.

Perhaps you can help me there.

It can't "become" valid when it's valid all along.

Denial.

[We_Are_VENOM]

A premise has no requirement to be true or false when it is stated:

prem·ise
noun
Logic: A previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
"if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true"

With all due respect, you are just blatantly wrong here.

When you are giving an deductive argument (which is what was given), then the premises MUST be true.

"A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be deductively valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises are true."

https://iep.utm.edu/ded-ind/

Do you see "provided that the argument's premises are true?" Yet, you are saying the premises has no requirement to be true or false (which makes no sense whatsoever, because I thought we were dealing with "truth" value here).

[Bust Nak]

Then ask.

I did ask though, you just told me to read it again. So are you going to explain yourself properly this time?

No.

So why did you ask me to prove something that I never implied, let alone stated?

And that very premise was justified countless times on here to you and others.

Justified by using circular argument, doesn't count.

Since it is true that conceivable concepts are (must be) logical, then it follows that logical concepts are conceivable.

Yes, but you cannot use that as an argument to support that something is logical and conceivable, because it is circular. Why is this not registering?

Good for you. Great for me. My criteria was; an answer of "I don't know" is just handing me the dub (W)...and I already stated why the dub is mine, based on such an answer.

Well, you do you. I will keep pointing out that you have failed to justify the truth of the first premise.

Um, from what I gather; I can still challenge you to "prove" to me that you don't know whether you can think of a MGB. That is still within my repertoire.

You did that already, how did that help you?

Denial.

Yep, it's a habit of mine to deny trivial falsehoods.

Still an unwarranted hypothetical.

That's still not an answer to "what if it is true?"

"Been there, done that" <---implies I am not waiting to prove anything.

It also implies you are wrong, you said you would make a new thread, you've confirmed that you are still waiting, you most certainly have not been there nor done that.

I've had it since you first made the irrelevant mention of the bearded guy. This was, what...at least a week and a half ago?

And yet there you were, going on about atheists imagining the God as support for your argument, around a week and a half ago, curious.

I don't recall denying the fact that you can draw a guy in the cloud.

But you recall challenging me to prove that I can imagine a guy in the cloud, right?

I will again point out the irrelevance of your bearded guy scenario.

And you'd be just as wrong as you were the first time you said that. You used the fact that atheist can imagine God as support for your first premise, my bearded guy scenario countered that justification.

Oh, is it?

Yes, it is.

I provided a little appetizer of it here, though. The main course is the argument, coming to a thread near you.

Same advice as before: Then don't saying you've been there and done it when you in fact, haven't made the thread.

Check my post history.

I did, still nothing.

I can definitely see where the premises is false. Yet, I don't see where the premise is valid.

Perhaps you can help me there.

I can certainly try. You were looking at the wrong place, you don't see where the premise is valid, because validity does not apply to premises, it applies to the whole argument / syllogism. In the example I provided, the first premise is false, yet the syllogism is valid. If there is still any doubt, check out the explanation you provided just now:

"A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be deductively valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises are true."

My example syllogism guarantees the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument’s premises are true, hence valid.

Do you see "provided that the argument's premises are true?" Yet, you are saying the premises has no requirement to be true or false.

Yes, that's what "provided that the argument's premises are true" means, it means the premises are not required to be true (or false.) What do you think phrase "provided that" means? Why do you still think the premises must be true when the very sources you quote literally says otherwise?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #186]

Do you see "provided that the argument's premises are true?"

Yes ... which allows for the possibility that the argument's premise is not true (ie. false). You cannot claim that if someone is advancing a deductive argument that any premise stated is by definition true for that reason alone.

[benchwarmer]

I enjoy interlocuters who display hypocrisy

I rather enjoy running circles around my opponents...

No need in patting yourself on the back when you've accomplished nothing as far as refutation of the argument is concerned.

It's so much easier when I can cut and paste someone's own words. Saves me typing.

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.

That's because we live in this world. I thought we were talking about 'possible' worlds. ?? That is the entire point of the MOA isn't it? Are you suggesting I think 2 + 2 will ever not equal 4 in our world? If so, you are not following along very well.

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 know, and you couldn't draw one when asked.

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

Then we can't know based on your goal post moving whether you have actually imagined it or not. You can't ask others to prove their imaginings and then turn around and complain when they ask you to do the same.

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

Just like we asked you to do and then you failed.

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

I already drew the one sided stick and you didn't like it. Not my problem anymore.

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

You mean other people showing that you are committing multiple logical fallacies and goal post moving? It's uncomfortable isn't it?

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

Thank MGB! The debate doesn't advance when you simply stamp your feet and don't actually address counter arguments.

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).

No, it just speaks to your hypocrisy in this thread.

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.

Making you follow your own rules is irrelevant? Yup, hypocrisy indeed. Either follow your own rules, or stop introducing them. Did you think you could just pull out the special pleading fallacy when it suits you?

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.

Just go use the search function. You didn't like it.

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!!

LOL if you like, but not understanding the example is not helping your case. I already explained only the pixies can add to 4 and they like it like that. So much so no one else may do so. In this world, the people don't know about the pixies or how many of them there are. THEY can't make 2 + 2 = 4. They can only guess and make silly, non observational arguments about why this is so. The pixies giggle every time someone OTHER than them attempts to add 2 + 2 or any other combination that would equal 4. It's not hard to imagine, I just did it. That's how I managed to write this text. So the people in this imagining can only make 2 + 2 = 96.

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.

Except it's not addition. It's conversion. There's a difference. There are NEVER 4 things other than the pixies in my imagined scenario. Any time anything would become 4, things don't get added, the entire lot of stuff is transformed into 96. These people can't possibly add ANYTHING to make 4.

I understand my imagination is highly inconvenient for your argument, but that's not really my problem. Just pointing things out.

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.

You haven't done anything but argue in a circle. You have also not defined a logically coherent concept. You've definitely imagined something and I'm fine to let you claim you have, but then you decided you needed others to prove they had done so. It's your turn now. Still waiting.

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 suggest shaking harder. You actually said:

We_Are_VENOM wrote:
But things that can exist in reality CAN be imagined.

THAT is what I replied to.

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.

Says the person switching cabs faster than a New Yorker. I think I'll join you. LOL!!! SMH

[otseng]

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.

Moderator Comment

Profanity, even coded ones, are not allowed on the forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.