.
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
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14180
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
- Contact:
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #31We cannot easily [if at all] comprehend a being which has always existed - largely because it presents us with the problem of infinite regress but shifts from the question "Who created the Creator?" to "why isn't everything therefore already perfection?" Why does it appear things are on their way to somewhere, rather than already being everywhere all the same complete and without blemish?We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 6:24 pm
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..
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.
The MGB [given the attributes you have assigned to It] should always be and have always been in a state of perfection yet we witness within the creation something incomplete. One cannot argue that our universe is incomplete if one also argues that the MGB is omnipresent - therefore is within our universe, therefore being all powerful would affect this universe in a way which would make this universe complete and eternal - so the state of this universe undermines the whole argument that there exists an actual MGB with the attributes you have assigned to it in order to make it qualify as an MGB
- 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 #32.
Hiatus over
I guess we can define the class as; a class of arguments which attempts to prove the existence of God based on pure reasoning, rather than observation.
But then as I began to think about it, this isn't necessary.
For the simple fact that, to conceive of a MGB is to imply that it is possible for such being to exist (a point I continue to emphasize).
If you then attempt to conceive the nonexistence of said being, then what you are doing is rendering the being's existence to one of contingency (that is, "I can conceive of a MGB existing, but I can also conceive of it not existing"). This is an obvious shifting of the existence concept (from necessary, to contingent).
In short, you are equivocating the term "existence", where in one case you can imagine the being existing necessarily, but in the next case, you imagine its contingent nonexistence.
Once you acknowledge/admit that it is possible for a MGB to exist, you cannot logically give it's nonexistence equal probability, because if it's nonexistence was equally probable, then it's existence possibility was never actually possible in the first place.
The being that you are referring to is actually a contingent one, and that is where your equal probability is coming from.
I said all of that to say this; sure, we can all imagine the nonexistence of a contingency being, but we cannot imagine the nonexistence of a necessary being...because of a necessary being cannot NOT exist.
This is a yes/no question...and the question's truth value is independent of whether or not there is a "justification" for defining it that way.
Now, the question of "is the concept of a MGB justified?", then that is a different question, and I've given justification of the premises in the argument.
Hiatus over
I think the "Ontological Argument" can be consider a class of arguments, which the modal version of it being just that; a version of this class.
I guess we can define the class as; a class of arguments which attempts to prove the existence of God based on pure reasoning, rather than observation.
So, when PW semantics is being used, it is just describing a set of circumstances which may/may not be true (or possible).
Yes, that was a debate that I had participated in...and I will use that same argumentation now, actually.Diagoras wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:19 pm I recall a ‘Head 2 Head’ forum discussion a while back on the MOA which ended unresolved. Your definition above actually helps shed some light on why that was the case. The interlocutors reached an impasse when one attempted to introduce a ‘Possible World’ that contained no Maximally Great Being (as defined the same as how you set out). Their argument was essentially “I can imagine such a world, therefore it exists”, while the original proponent of the MOA dismissed that Possible World as impossible, given the definition of God being omnipresent and therefore existing in every possible world.
Admittedly, your response above had me stumped for a bit...and as I stated before in a couple posts back, I was going to take some time to think about this and perhaps revise the argument with some additional premises.Diagoras wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:19 pm Your statement about Possible Worlds could be taken to say that one might exist that was not only false, but actually impossible. That appears self-contradictory. But even if simply false (excluding the impossible), then an argument can be constructed from stating “we can conceive of a world in which no maximally great being exists” (perhaps true, perhaps false) and going on to conclude that God doesn’t exist in any possible world using the exact same logic as you have done.
But then as I began to think about it, this isn't necessary.
For the simple fact that, to conceive of a MGB is to imply that it is possible for such being to exist (a point I continue to emphasize).
If you then attempt to conceive the nonexistence of said being, then what you are doing is rendering the being's existence to one of contingency (that is, "I can conceive of a MGB existing, but I can also conceive of it not existing"). This is an obvious shifting of the existence concept (from necessary, to contingent).
In short, you are equivocating the term "existence", where in one case you can imagine the being existing necessarily, but in the next case, you imagine its contingent nonexistence.
Once you acknowledge/admit that it is possible for a MGB to exist, you cannot logically give it's nonexistence equal probability, because if it's nonexistence was equally probable, then it's existence possibility was never actually possible in the first place.
The being that you are referring to is actually a contingent one, and that is where your equal probability is coming from.
I said all of that to say this; sure, we can all imagine the nonexistence of a contingency being, but we cannot imagine the nonexistence of a necessary being...because of a necessary being cannot NOT exist.
The question is "Is it possible for a MGB (defined as eternal) to exist in reality".Diagoras wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:19 pm From a bit of research, I’ve come across a few sites which explain how this contradictory position might have come about: the initial problem with the logic is in the initial step of defining God as eternal and therefore necessary. Which begs the question, what justification is there for defining God as eternal in the first place?
This is a yes/no question...and the question's truth value is independent of whether or not there is a "justification" for defining it that way.
Now, the question of "is the concept of a MGB justified?", then that is a different question, and I've given justification of the premises in the argument.
I agree.
See my answer above.
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 #33Yes we can. Believers do it all the time.
I can/will prove otherwise.
A necessary being cannot be created.
Can a perfect being create imperfection? Yes. Can a perfect being become imperfect? No.
Same answer as above.
A perfect painter can choose to create an imperfect picture...but it is a choice...the painter isn't bound by this imperfection.
Same answer as above. The imperfect state of our universe is based upon the imperfect state of mankind. It is man who is imperfect, not God.William wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:45 pm One cannot argue that our universe is incomplete if one also argues that the MGB is omnipresent - therefore is within our universe, therefore being all powerful would affect this universe in a way which would make this universe complete and eternal - so the state of this universe undermines the whole argument that there exists an actual MGB with the attributes you have assigned to it in order to make it qualify as an MGB
If God was to create the "perfect" man, God would have to create the man with no free will...and to create man with no free will is not to guarantee that man won't use this freedom to commit imperfect acts.
This perfect and complete world does exist...have you ever heard of Heaven?
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 #34Impossible. The being which you can not conceive of is a being with a contingent existence.
That is precisely why the argument is so powerful, because that is all it takes.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:03 pm I can conceive of it at a surface level -- as a hypothetical substance in a thought experiment.
Just by it's mere conception in a thought experiment is enough to say that the existence of said being is possible.
You cannot conceive of a one-sided stick in a thought experiment, can you? No, you can't.
Because it's existence isn't possible, that's why.
And why won't it work? Because you don't want it to work?Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:03 pm But I can't conceive of it in any comprehensive, molecular way that would actually make sense and work
Please provide a reason as to why it won't work. Sure, you can say that, but can you provide justification as to why not?Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:03 pm .... So for the latter reason, it is not a necessary potential truth. It would have to be established that such a thing could work, given our laws. For the same reason I don't think we can jump to the conclusion that it is even possible.
Of course, the laws in a different universe could be different. But I would say you would need to establish that as well. That too is not an "obvious" necessary truth.
Sure, we have to take it on a case-by-case basis. And in this case, it is possible...as you've just admitted in thought experiment.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:03 pm I believe reality is not malleable. It is fixed. It isn't that "just anything" could be possible. That's what I think.
Category mistake.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:03 pm P.S., I believe anything that can be even contingent must be necessarily possible
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14180
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
- Contact:
Re: Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
Post #35There is a difference in stating ones belief in such, than actually comprehending such...
Do so then. Are you waiting for a drum roll?I can/will prove otherwise.
A necessary being cannot be created.
Not what I am arguing.Can a perfect being create imperfection? Yes. Can a perfect being become imperfect? No.
That answer does not counter my argument. What it does offer is that imperfection appears to be the preferred type of creation..."why" is the question then. Is the MGB bored or I it something else?Same answer as above.
A perfect painter can choose to create an imperfect picture...but it is a choice...the painter isn't bound by this imperfection.
William wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:45 pm One cannot argue that our universe is incomplete if one also argues that the MGB is omnipresent - therefore is within our universe, therefore being all powerful would affect this universe in a way which would make this universe complete and eternal - so the state of this universe undermines the whole argument that there exists an actual MGB with the attributes you have assigned to it in order to make it qualify as an MGB
.Same answer as above. The imperfect state of our universe is based upon the imperfect state of mankind. It is man who is imperfect, not God
Not so. Man did not create this universe incomplete. Indeed, if humans are imperfect, then they were created that way in the first place. Same argument applies....Why would an MGB create imperfection if it were itself complete...
Which is to argue that the MGB is imperfect, because either way there is no "guarantee" which then tells us that the MGB is not an MGB because it is not omnipotent in regards to what it is able to create.If God was to create the "perfect" man, God would have to create the man with no free will...and to create man with no free will is not to guarantee that man won't use this freedom to commit imperfect acts.
Yes. But one perfect and complete world does not make an MGB an MGB in relation to any imperfect and incomplete worlds, which is why I argued "the state of this universe undermines the whole argument that there exists an actual MGB with the attributes you have assigned to it in order to make it qualify as an MGB"This perfect and complete world does exist...have you ever heard of Heaven?
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 788
- 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 #36Okay. That means the magic water fuel has a contingent existence. Perhaps conceive is the wrong word then. I can only imagine it. Imagine ≠ conceive, then.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:50 pmImpossible. The being which you can not conceive of is a being with a contingent existence.
Because there is no way for it to work if we accept the laws currently. It hasn't been demonstrated at least. So it's an "unknown."We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:50 pmAnd why won't it work? Because you don't want it to work?
I think the onus is on you. It hasn't been shown in any way to work even in a theoretical way. So why should anyone believe it to be possible? Again, taking our physical laws seriously. You can say it is "miraculously" possible, but that's not taking this substance to be actual; it's taking divine intervention to be possible. Those are different things.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:50 pmPlease provide a reason as to why it won't work. Sure, you can say that, but can you provide justification as to why not?
I don't think it is. Even if it is, we don't know it. Again, imaginable ≠ conceivable.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 8:50 pmSure, we have to take it on a case-by-case basis. And in this case, it is possible...as you've just admitted in thought experiment.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:03 pm I believe reality is not malleable. It is fixed. It isn't that "just anything" could be possible. That's what I think.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
- 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 #37Ok, well let me cease speaking for others and just state that I can comprehend it.
*drum roll* Check my latest thread.
Then what are you arguing?
I covered "why" at the end of the post...but since that isn't what you are arguing and thus doesn't "counter" what you are arguing, we need not focus on it, do we?
Answered this already.
I fail to understand your point.William wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:17 pm
Yes. But one perfect and complete world does not make an MGB an MGB in relation to any imperfect and incomplete worlds, which is why I argued "the state of this universe undermines the whole argument that there exists an actual MGB with the attributes you have assigned to it in order to make it qualify as an MGB"
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 #38Same thing. To conceive it is to imagine it, and vice versa.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:21 pm Okay. That means the magic water fuel has a contingent existence. Perhaps conceive is the wrong word then. I can only imagine it. Imagine ≠ conceive, then.
Right...but whose to say in another universe, the laws aren't different...thus, different results?Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:21 pm
Because there is no way for it to work if we accept the laws currently. It hasn't been demonstrated at least. So it's an "unknown."
Based on the fact that it is conceivable/imaginable. If there aren't an infinite amount of "universes", can't it be possible in one of them?Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:21 pm
I think the onus is on you. It hasn't been shown in any way to work even in a theoretical way. So why should anyone believe it to be possible? Again, taking our physical laws seriously. You can say it is "miraculously" possible, but that's not taking this substance to be actual; it's taking divine intervention to be possible. Those are different things.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 788
- 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 #39Actually, there are many thinkers, such as Spinoza, who would disagree with you.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:29 pmSame thing. To conceive it is to imagine it, and vice versa.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:21 pm Okay. That means the magic water fuel has a contingent existence. Perhaps conceive is the wrong word then. I can only imagine it. Imagine ≠ conceive, then.
To imagine is not necessarily to conceptualize a concept in any robust way. Not to belabor the point, but we don't currently have any sort of blueprint for a substance that can replace water in organic bodies and also be the sole ingredient for space engines. The same thing with flying elephants. I can imagine an elephant flying with feather wings. But if we analyze physics, the known laws wouldn't allow a heavy elephant becoming airborne by butterfly-thin wings. That's just not what the laws allow. That doesn't stop me from daydreaming them though.
To imagine is to confusedly and haphazardly arrange images in the mind. To actually conceptualize is to go in-depth into the laws that make up nature and organize them consistently.
Well, if the laws are different, but then, other things would therefore also be different. So... it would probably be a universe completely different from our own.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:29 pmRight...but whose to say in another universe, the laws aren't different...thus, different results?
It could be possible in a different universe. But it also has to be established that those other universes really do exist. Or if they too are not truly possible. Given what we know from modern science, it's all a big unknown.We_Are_VENOM wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:29 pmBased on the fact that it is conceivable/imaginable. If there aren't an infinite amount of "universes", can't it be possible in one of them?
Perhaps the nature of laws are such that they apply in every universe? How do we know they don't? Perhaps death, old age and disease are universal, in every universe.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
- 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 #40There mere definition of conceive is to "imagine".Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:40 pm
Actually, there are many thinkers, such as Spinoza, who would disagree with you.
To imagine is not necessarily to conceptualize a concept in any robust way.
Please explain to me why can I daydream about a flying elephant with wings, but I can't daydream about beating you with a one-sided stick.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:40 pm Not to belabor the point, but we don't currently have any sort of blueprint for a substance that can replace water in organic bodies and also be the sole ingredient for space engines. The same thing with flying elephants. I can imagine an elephant flying with feather wings. But if we analyze physics, the known laws wouldn't allow a heavy elephant becoming airborne by butterfly-thin wings. That's just not what the laws allow. That doesn't stop me from daydreaming them though.
Why can imagine one, and not the other?
False. I am "imagining" myself waking up tomorrow morning and having breakfast. There is nothing "confused and haphazardly" about it, either.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:40 pm To imagine is to confusedly and haphazardly arrange images in the mind. To actually conceptualize is to go in-depth into the laws that make up nature and organize them consistently.
Um, that is kinda the WHOLE POINT of the entire argument. Where do you think the whole "possible world" stuff is coming from?Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sat Apr 10, 2021 10:40 pm
Well, if the laws are different, but then, other things would therefore also be different. So... it would probably be a universe completely different from our own.
Do you not understand the argument?
Venni Vetti Vecci!!