The Modal Ontological Argument

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Artie
Prodigy
Posts: 3306
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:26 pm

Post #141

Post by Artie »

For_The_Kingdom wrote:Please explain what is illogical about a being that posseesses the four omni's.
For one, omnipotent is defined as "having unlimited power and able to do anything"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... omnipotent
and omnipresent is defined as "present in all places at all times"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipresent

A being who is defined as being present in all places at all times can't make himself not present in some places and if he can't he's not omnipotent.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #142

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 96 by For_The_Kingdom]
So I am at a lost at why you think I "jacked" WLC's argument, when it is not even his argument and he never really uses it in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0poy7jcbm8
...you were saying?
You have to be a fan of WLC's written work to know that he even uses this argument, because in his debates (what he is most famous for), he almost never uses the MOA.
One doesn't have to be a fan of someone in order to know what it is they are famous for.
I've watched WLC a fair bit, not just in debates, so that is where my knowledge of him using the MOA comes from.
Because I am a Christian Apologist...and most of you people on here are Christian skeptics/critics...and this is a debate forum.

See how all three of those elements go together to form a nice, big union?
Perhaps I should have highlighted the word 'this' in the question I asked there. I was asking why create a thread about the MOA, using a version that basically reads verbatim from someone else, without putting anything from yourself into it, almost as if you're expecting us regulars in C&A not to have encountered the MOA before.
Think of it as like being a creationist who says to us "But evolution is just a theory!"
rikuoamero wrote: I'd like to point out something. A couple pages back, Kingdom said that William Lane Craig almost never uses the MOA, to which I responded by linking a video where he does just that.
In the middle of the video, an overlay appears, which, when condensed, says that the goal of the argument is to make the atheist say "It is possible god exists".
When I thought about it, this isn't really anything different from the old playground taunt of
"A loser says what?"
"What?"
"Aha! You said what, therefore you admit to being a loser!"

The goal isn't to get the atheist to some sort of new understanding...the goal is to get the atheist to say something.
You know, I was just getting ready to call it a day on here...but before I wrap it up on here, I have a habit of browsing through the latter pages of the thread to see the posts that I will be responding the following day.

And as I did just that, I noticed that rikuoamero, apparently, thinks he has a "gotcha" moment on me...regarding my prior statement of saying that "Dr. Craig never really uses the Modal Ontological Argument."

So after I made the statement, what did rikuoamero do? He did a quick Google and/or Youtube search, probably something like "Dr. Craig and the ontological argument"...something along those lines, right?...and presto, there exists video footage of Dr. Craig addressing the argument!! Wowwwww.

Then I guess rikuoamero patted himself on the back as a job well done, right? How deserving!!! Then he posted it on this very thread and quotes my statement of "Dr. Craig never really uses the argument", and then he says to me "you were saying"?

But despite all of that, one post wasn't good enough..oh no, he had to make two posts regarding this issue. I took the liberty of quoting both posts, and I will address both of them simultaneously.

First off, when I said "Dr. Craig never really uses the argument", does that suggest or imply that, if you search for it, you won't find a single video, article, podcast, etc., of him addressing the argument??? No.

So, why on earth would a statement such as "Dr. Craig never really uses the argument", why would such a statement require one to post a video of him addressing the argument, as if I said "Dr. Craig NEVER used/uses the argument"??

Is that lack of reading comprehension on rikuoamero's part? Or is he just "reaching", searching, trying to find something to "get" me on. I don't know.

So, lets focus on the actual truth value of what I said, which was "Dr. Craig never really uses the argument". Is that a true statement? Yes, it is.

Anyone who follows Dr. Craig knows that of all of this arguments, the MOA is the one that he uses the LEAST. In fact, I am only aware of one debate that he uses the argument, which was in his second debate with Victor Stenger. He hardly EVER uses the argument. That is not to say that you wont find footage or stumble across a journal or podcast of him ADDRESSING the argument. No one is denying that. But I simply stated that he doesn't really use the argument in his debates, or much in his written work..

In fact...I have in front of me his book "Reasonable Faith", at which he gives arguments for the existence of God, namely, the Christian God....the book has 415 pages (index & introduction included), and of those 415 pages regarding arguments for the EXISTENCE of God, there is a passage regarding the Ontological Argument. Guess how many pages are geared towards the Ontological Argument.....only 4 pages!! 4 of 415 pages!!

In his debates, Dr. Craig places his energy towards 4 arguments...

1. Kalam
2. Design
3. Moral
4. Resurrection

Not only that, but he has also participated in debates that were STRICTLY on each of those 4 arguments...meaning that he has had debates at which the subject was strictly and independently on either the kalam, argument from design, moral argument, and of course the Resurrection.

He has NEVER had a debate where the focus was primarily on the ontological argument, and as I said, there is only one debate that I am aware of where the ontological argument was even presented as an argument.

He rarely mentions the MOA in his written work, either. So as I said, "Dr. Craig never even uses the argument".

So what I said is true, so you did not earn any brownie points from either of those posts.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 8707
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: The formerly Great US of A
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post #143

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 136 by For_The_Kingdom]
I am trying not to conflate the KCA and the MOA together. I understand that somehow, someway, you've managed to bring science into an argument that completely lacks any materialistic element to it. How you managed to do that, I don't know
Well, yet again you have conceded. Logic and philosophy cannot run without a material lattice to run on. I fact, the kind of lattice determines the outcome of the logic.

That's right, logic is material dependent.

So, really though, you are trying to say that it is against the rules somehow to use other disciplines to contribute to philosophical arguments. I think you must have ignored Rene Descartes in your philosophy studies, indeed, Aristotle, and really everyone who is anyone in that realm.

In fact in 1978 several philosophers used the very arguments from physical sciences I mentioned to prove the same things. The philosopher Paul Davies and the Physicist Kaku say the same thing.

So how you think that a logical argument can be stomped on and crushed flat by physical observations is really beyond me.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Post #144

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 141 by For_The_Kingdom]

When one is criticizing another's reading comprehension, one should check their own first.
In the second post you quoted from me there in your post 141, I acknowledged that it wasn't a literal "he never used the MOA". In the opening sentence, I use the word "almost".
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12221
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #145

Post by Elijah John »

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
And as I did just that, I noticed that rikuoamero, apparently, thinks he has a "gotcha" moment on me...

--------

So after I made the statement, what did rikuoamero do? He did a quick Google and/or Youtube search,............. Wowwwww.

---------

Then I guess rikuoamero patted himself on the back as a job well done, right? How deserving!!!

---------

But despite all of that, one post wasn't good enough..oh no, he had to make two posts

----------

Is that lack of reading comprehension on rikuoamero's part? Or is he just "reaching", searching, trying to find something to "get" me on. I don't know.

----------

Not only that, but he has al you did not earn any brownie points from either of those posts.
:warning: Moderator Warning


These remarks are mocking, personal attacks and have no place in honorable debate.

Please make your arguments without resorting to such tactics.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8847
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Post #146

Post by Bust Nak »

For_The_Kingdom wrote: Um, no we don't just define God into existence. I can define you as a necessary being, but does it follow that you are actually one? No...the mere definition has absolutely nothing to do with the truth value of whether the definition is actually true.
That's the point: You have defined God as a necessary being, but does it follow that God is a necessary being? No. That is why we keep accusing you of just defining God into existence. Later you talk about having a separate proof for that...
A first cause is necessary, and that will be proven in my KCA thread. The intent & purpose of this argument is to demonstrate that the possibility of a MGB existing is...possible...and since all possible necessary truths must actually be true...then therefore, God exists.
... If you actually have a proof that God is necessary, then the modal ontological argument is entirely redundant. There is no need to demonstrate that the possibility of a MGB existing logically leads to God existence, because it is trivial: God is necessary, therefore God exist. That was the first thing I brought up in response to you. We are way ahead of you.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Post #147

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 143 by rikuoamero]

Really should have put this in post 143, but when I did the secondary post about the video I had linked to, notice that not once in that post did I say Kingdom was doing this. I was pointing out what I noticed in the video and what I thought of the overlay and the argument...NOT what I thought Kingdom's goal was.
I honestly do not know whether or not Kingdom's goal in doing this thread was to do what I talked about in that post. If he isn't, more power to him. If he is...*shrugs*
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm

Post #148

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 145 by Bust Nak]
That's the point: You have defined God as a necessary being, but does it follow that God is a necessary being? No. That is why we keep accusing you of just defining God into existence. Later you talk about having a separate proof for that...
And why we used this argument to 'prove' the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns and what-have-you. Using Kingdom's methods and logic, we could declare that any of these are necessary beings and from that say, that as necessary beings, they MUST exist.
However, such arguments do not explain HOW we got to the FSM/unicorns/whatever as being necessary. They also run up against the brick wall of reality - notice there is no hard evidence of a FSM or unicorns (or a god). Just claims of such.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 16718
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here

Post #149

Post by JoeyKnothead »

This thread is absolutely hilarious.

OP, in common thieist fashion, accuses atheists of putting their hands over there ears, and has so obviously shut out any rational argument that might refute his precious "probability means it is" argument.

Read the thread observer, see where OP has the temerity to accuse atheists, and sits there guilty of his own slander.

I call shenanigans.

I claim the OP is guilty of the very "hands over the ears" accusations he hurls at us atheists.

I call fraud.

I call a complete lack of ability for OP to understand this argument, to understand that he's displaying the very "hands over ears" accusation he's dared to accuse the atheist!

In what "possible world" has it ever been shown that probability means something is?

ONLY in the world of the theist, who has a priori accepted god belief, could there ever come a day when something being possible means that something done did.

This OP is testament to the nature of theistic thinking, where probable is thought actual, where no manner of refute will persuade the ignorant that it ain't everybody else cupping their hands over their ears, but the theist, having accepted all opponents of it, can't realize he done dunked his whole danged head in the sand! Ears, hands, and all!

I'm ashamed to see this OP has had to drag on this long. I'm further ashamed to see that it only had to drag on 'cause the accuser has super-glued his hands to his head, before a-dinkin' it under the sand.

(Tagularial edit, leaving speling mistakes be)
Some say it came from Memphis down in Tennessee
Or it drifted in from Georgia about 1953
Just as long as it's greasy, as long as it's fast
As long as it's pumpin' honey, it's gonna last

It's the hillbilly rock, beat it with a drum
Playin' them guitars like shootin' from a gun
Keepin' up the rhythm, steady as a clock
Doin' a little thing called the hillbilly rock
- Marty Stuart

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #150

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Furrowed Brow wrote: To be sound the argument needs to be both valid i.e. the conclusion follows from the premise, and all the premises need to be true.
Ok, so point out any premise of the argument that isn't true.
Furrowed Brow wrote: Point 1 is a premise. It is not proven true or self evidently true. Several other commentators including myself have made the point there is an epistemological/ontological (metaphysical) divide. You may say most folk admit a maximally great being is possible but as pointed out the point is only granted on epistemological grounds.
As I keep stressing; a proposition cannot be possibly necessarily true, but actually false.

When you say "it is possible for God to exist", you are saying "there is a possible world at which a necessary being exists", but since necessary truths are true in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS, then it just logically follows that it is true in the actual world, namely, this world.
Furrowed Brow wrote: Maybe in reality it is not possible
That is the point, it is possible.
Furrowed Brow wrote: but lack of knowledge on the subject means we don't really know and a MGB may well be impossible.
It would only be impossible if there was a logical contradiction based on the mere concept..that is the only way it would be impossible for a MGB to exist. Since there is no internal contradiction based on the mere concept of what a MGB is, then we have to admit that it is at least possible for such a being to exist.
Furrowed Brow wrote: Thus the argument relies on an equivocation over what is meant by "possible".
Have you explain why the word "possible" is being equivocated?
Furrowed Brow wrote: Someone else has has already made the point neatly when they said when they say something is possible they mean this in the weak sense it may be possible or it may be impossible. People also often mean contingent when they use the world possible.
Right, that is exactly the point!! You are using "possible" in the sense of a possible contingent truth, when the subject is a matter of necessary truths. If anything, that is how the word "possible" is being equivocated, but not by me, but by some of you.
Furrowed Brow wrote:
  • 1. It is uncertain that a maximally great being exists
If the word "possible" is used without invoking uncertainty, i'e it invites a metaphysical possibility, the argument begs the question.
I've already gave a reason why it is possible though, and all possible necessary truths must be...true.
Furrowed Brow wrote: When is it recognised the use of the word "possible" invites uncertainty then it is clear how the final conclusion goes awry. If we wish to avoid epistemic logics then in modal we may also write...
Nope. As soon as you say "it is possible" when it comes to necessary truths, you are subsequently affirming that the proposition is actually true.

No way around it.
Furrowed Brow wrote:
  • 1. It is contingent (possible and it is possible not) that a maximally great being exists
I suspect most people when they talk about possibility likely mean uncertainty or contingency. To build an argument that insists they must mean something else is moot and it is safer to check what they really mean.
To say that it is "contingently possible that a maximally great being exists" is nonsensical.
Furrowed Brow wrote:
If it is conceivable, there is a possible world at which the proposition that it relates to is true...
It is conceivable but we don't know if it is metaphysical possibility. For example, after watching Star Trek it is possible to conceive of warp drive, but maybe there are no possible worlds in which warp drive actually works. It is possible to conceive of impossible worlds and mistake them for metaphysical possibilities.
If there are "no possible worlds in which warp drives actually works", then it is not possible in which a ward drive would actually work...because if it was possible, there would be at least one possible world at which it would work, wouldn't it?
Furrowed Brow wrote: This is moot if not plain false. Unsound arguments are conceivable.
  • 1. No swans are black
    2. All ravens are black
    3. No Swans are ravens
This example argument is valid if we assume 1 is true, but the argument is not sound because 1 is not true.
I specifically said "all logically sound propositions are conceivable". I was talking about propositions, not arguments.
Furrowed Brow wrote: That is possible? with a question mark and a don't know shrug. Maybe such a thing is not possible.
If you don't know, just say "I don't know"...don't go saying "it is possible" or "it isn't possible" and opening yourself to certain implications that you may not necessarily like.
Furrowed Brow wrote: Here is the argument again in a far less problematic form.
  • 1. It may be possible that a maximally great being exists or it may be impossible.
    2. If it is maybe possible that a maximally great being exists, then maybe a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
    3. If maybe a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then maybe it exists in every possible world.
    4. If maybe a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then maybe it exists in the actual world (our world).
    5. If maybe a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
    6. Therefore, maybe a maximally great being exists.
This is the argument in its sound form. But clearly this is far weaker than what the original version of the argument sets out to achieve.
Either a MGB's existence is possible, or it isn't possible. Plain and simple. If it is possible, then such a being exists.

No gray area.
Furrowed Brow wrote: What may be conceived and what may be real are two different things.
Can you conceive of a squared circle? No, because such a thing defies logic..it is a categorical mistake...and such a thing cannot exist in reality.
Furrowed Brow wrote: A theist may conceive of a being without limits but that does not make such a being actually possible.
In the above example of the squared circle...can you think of a possible world at which a squared circle could exist? No, because the existence of a squared circle is necessarily false. But if you COULD think of a squared circle, then there is a possible world at which a squared circle could exist.

The same thing with a MGB.
Furrowed Brow wrote: If there are limits on what a maximally great being may do why call such a being God?
But if there are limits to what a maximally great being may do, then it is impossible for it to be done. If a MGB can't do it, nothing or no one can.
Furrowed Brow wrote: If for example omniscience is impossible, or omnipotence is impossible. Maybe there is a maximally great being but none of the things a theist may attributed to God are ever actually possible.
But if it is CONCEIVABLE, then there is a possible world at which there is a being that posssess those attributes.
Furrowed Brow wrote: And here we find the modal argument begs the metaphysical question when it assumes that what it can conceive of is actually possible. Just as we may imagine time travel, but time travel may be impossible. Thus if there is a maximally great being such a being is precluded from time travel (if indeed time travel is impossible).
Exactly, we can't imagine contingent human beings being able to time travel, but we CAN imagine a MGB being able to time travel, can't we?
Furrowed Brow wrote: But what do we mean by possible?
By possible, we mean that there are a set of circumstances that will allow any event X to occur. These set of circumstances is what we would call "Possible World(s)? [PW].
Furrowed Brow wrote: I might say time travel is possible. That does not make it actually possible.
If a MGB exists, then it can be possible. So if there was a world at which a MGB exists, then time travel would be possible, woudn't it? Yes it would...well, there ya go.
Furrowed Brow wrote: It may be impossible.
Not to a MGB.
Furrowed Brow wrote: So saying it is possible just means I don't really know and I accept the option that it may be possible or it may be impossible. The argument you are deploying demands that when someone admits something is possible they are committed to metaphysical possibility and deny its impossibility. But most people don't really talk like that unless they are modal logicians. And if a modal logicians pins us down then we shrug and say we don't mean that, and the modal argument needs to be changed in light of the example weaker argument given above.
You are saying "it may be possible, it may be impossible"....fine....but the question is "is it possible", and the answer to that question is "yes, it is possible". And as long as it is possible, it is true (when it comes to necessary propositions).
Furrowed Brow wrote: If we use the word possible as does a modal logical then yes ok if something is possible then there is a possible world in which that thing may be said to be true. This is a technical use of the word possible.
Why is it technical? :D
Furrowed Brow wrote: There is a technical problem here. It boils down to the problem of how to define necessity. The point is that a necessary truth does not need to be true in every possible world, only every world accessible from the world under study usually called the actual world.
Please tell me in what world would 2+2 not equal 4.
Furrowed Brow wrote: The question for time travel is in which class does the actual world belong?
Huh?
Furrowed Brow wrote: Similarly there may be worlds in which omniscience is possible. But there may be other worlds i which it is not possible.
Only a necessary being can have omniscience as an attribute.
Furrowed Brow wrote: If omniscience is possible in the actual world then the actual world cannot access worlds in which it is not possible (and vice versa). If we introduce the notion of a maximally greater being that exists in every world it may exist in worlds where time travel is possible and worlds where time travel is not possible, it may exists in worlds where omniscience is possible and worlds where omniscience is not possible. In which case is is a mistake to associated the idea of MGB with an omniscient God.
But it would not be possible for time travel to NOT be possible in all worlds, should there exist a necessary being at which time travel is possible.
Furrowed Brow wrote: But not if we mean contingent instead of possible. Necessity does not imply contingency, and contingency does not imply actuality.
Necessity requires actuality.

Post Reply