Shadow Thread for MOA H2H version 2

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Shadow Thread for MOA H2H version 2

Post #1

Post by rikuoamero »

Okay, this is the shadow thread for the debate currently underway between For_The_Kingdom and Wiploc on the Modal Ontological Argument.
Just wondering...is anyone interested in what I think about this debate, about it occurring so soon after my own against the very same opponent? Perhaps people can guess what this makes me think about FtK.
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
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #2

Post by rikuoamero »

Needless to say, I'm not impressed with FtK's opening post. It's more or less a copy and paste job of what he did with myself. At least he admits to that.
The same problems as before are still there though. He's still equivocating between two meanings of 'possible', not being clear on that and since the question for debate is the same as mine
My contention is that the MOA is a logically sound/valid argument for the existence of God.
(just worded slightly differently but the meaning is the same)...then is this just going to be a repeat of my debate?
I am interested in seeing where Wiploc goes with this. What way will Wiploc show that it is logically invalid (if not using the same points I did)?
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

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2284
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1957 times
Been thanked: 736 times

Re: Shadow Thread for MOA H2H version 2

Post #3

Post by benchwarmer »

[Replying to post 1 by rikuoamero]

I'm honestly a little confused. FtK quickly threw in the towel on the first one and now hopes to best someone else using the same argument?

I could understand wanting to re-engage riku with a clearer argument or some new material, but this is just strange.

Oh well, I hope they enjoy themselves. :)

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Link to Debate Thread

Post #4

Post by wiploc »

The debate thread is here:

The Modal Ontological Argument
For_the_Kingdom vs wiploc


Okay, I don't know how to post a link here. Maybe one of those will work well enough.

Maybe a moderator can improve this. (Mod: Considered it improved.) Maybe, for that matter, a moderator will delete this and insert an appropriate link at the top of the first post. That would be nice.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #5

Post by Divine Insight »

I read the FtK's OP in the new thread, and here's how I would personally respond to his argument.

He begins with the following definition of his MGB:
Omniscient: All knowing, knowing the truth value of all propositions.
Omnipotent: Can do anything that is logically possible.
Omnipresent: Presence is manifested, whether physically or spiritually, everywhere, at any given time
Omnibenevolent: The ultimate source of goodness, morally perfect.
So if this were a "REAL TIME" argument my move at this point, before he even begins his argument is to point out that he already has a "Logical Contradiction".

The logical contradiction is that he has defined his MGB to be both omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, which is already impossible because our world already exists and is not omnibenevolent.

So he's done already.

I have no clue what he would say in response to that but that would be my first objection.

Later on his states:
So, now we've defined our terms, and we've even defined the MGB..now, on to the actual argument..

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists


Once again I would point out that this has already been shown to be impossible as the MGB has been defined because our non-benevolent world exists and this violates his definition of this MGB.

He then later states:
Justification for P1: In other words, for all we know, a MGB could exist. To "prove" that God doesn't exist, wiploc (or his current opponent) would either have to.. show A
(which I won't bother listing here because it's irrelevant for my argument) or
B. Prove that God does not exist as a result of logical absurdities that arise based on the definition of "God". So he would have to prove that God does not exist based on the simple fact that the mere idea of God (as defined) is logically incoherent. In other words, the concept of God is absurd.

If my opponent feels this way, then the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate to us where the absurdity lies.


I accept this burden of proof. And I have already stated my proof above. FtK's MGB is a logical contradiction because his definition would require that our world must then be omnibenevolent which it clearly isn't. So that's a logical contradiction right there.

FtK then continues with the following demand:
I maintain that the concept of God, as defined in the argument, does not violate any laws of logic and is a logically coherent concept, making such a being's existence conceivable and at the very least POSSIBLE.

So, until further notice, P1 (It is possible that a maximally great being exists) stands.


And I just demonstrated why it's NOT POSSIBLE at all. Because it VIOLATES the laws of logic. In logic it is only required that we produce ONE CONTRADICTION to prove that something is false and therefore cannot be true.

I have done that. I have pointed out the fact that our non-benevolent universe exists thus violating his claim that his MGB is simultaneously omnipresent and omnibenevolent. It cannot exist in our world, or have created our world in any way, and still claim to be omnibenevolent.

Therefore I have produced the only contradiction I need to produce according to the LAWS OF LOGIC. I only need to show that his definition is contradicted by the real world which is clearly a "possible world" and I'm done.

So I've shown where his argument is a logical contradiction and thus absurd.

~~~~~

Note, he could argue that I need to prove that our world truly is non-benevolent. But that's ridiculous for the following reason:

Ftk had also stated (just prior to defining his MGB) in his OP the following:
Now that our preliminary terms have been defined, let's turn the attention to the definition of God, and keep in mind that I will be using "God" and "Maximally Great Being" (MGB) interchangeably throughout the argument.

God, at least as defined by Christian theism, is a maximally great being (MGB). By maximally great, we mean that God is.
It's clear here that he is concerned with the God of Christianity and Christian theism. But Christian theism does NOT allow that our world is omnibenevolent. So I don't see how he can object to my proof that his MGB cannot exist as he had defined it.

I used the rules of logic and proved that his definition of his MGB is incompatible with our world. And we can't ignore the fact that our world exists.

So he's done.

FtK wrote:
So, until further notice, P1 (It is possible that a maximally great being exists) stands.


Nope, sorry. It doesn't stand and never did. It necessarily fails because our world exists and is not omnibenevolent.

Q.E.D.

~~~~

Note: My guess is that FtK (and other proponents of the MOA) most likely try to reject any actual facts about the real world instead hoping for a "purely abstract logical argument" against their argument. But they are ignoring that the laws of logic include allowing real world evidence in as an example of a contradiction.

The only way FtK could reject my proof that his MGB can't possibly exist would be to renounce real world evidence. But he clearly can't do that because later in his own argument (i.e. at step #4) he demands that his MGB exists in our actual world. So that automatically requires that real world facts and evidence must be permitted in the argument.

So there's no hope for the MOA even as a purely abstract argument.

The only way the MOA could have a prayer would be to remove step #4 entirely whilst also demanding that our real world doesn't "count" as part of this totally abstract argument. But at that point he would have defeated the very purpose and intent of the MOA.

So there's no way to save the MOA as support for the Christian God.

Some other mystical philosophies might be able to use it. Those philosophies might claim that our world is indeed omnibenevolent too! In that case, those philosophies can hardly be argued with. So perhaps their God actually does exist? Who knows? :-k

But Christianity demands that our world is not omnibenevolent, so the MOA is useless as an argument for the God of Christianity.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #6

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]
It's clear here that he is concerned with the God of Christianity and Christian theism. But Christian theism does NOT allow that our world is omnibenevolent. So I don't see how he can object to my proof that his MGB cannot exist as he had defined it.
If his MGB is omni-present, I take that to mean present at every point in space-time. So...the MGB = the universe. I don't see how one can say Entity A occupies the same points in space time (is in the same place in terms of time and space) as a house, and yet insist that Entity A and the house are separate things.
Since FtK sprinkles his argument with Kalam, let's talk about causes. Kalam claims that the cause of the universe is some immensely powerful being 'outside' the universe. Except the MGB is the universe.
Problems...
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
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #7

Post by Divine Insight »

rikuoamero wrote: [Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]
It's clear here that he is concerned with the God of Christianity and Christian theism. But Christian theism does NOT allow that our world is omnibenevolent. So I don't see how he can object to my proof that his MGB cannot exist as he had defined it.
If his MGB is omni-present, I take that to mean present at every point in space-time. So...the MGB = the universe. I don't see how one can say Entity A occupies the same points in space time (is in the same place in terms of time and space) as a house, and yet insist that Entity A and the house are separate things.
In terms of Christianity I agree. However, the MOA itself never logically demands that a house and its MGB are not the same. In fact, as you point out, the MOA actually demands that they are the same.

So this is not a problem with the MOA specifically. But it is a problem when trying to use the MOA to support the God of Christianity.
rikuoamero wrote: Since FtK sprinkles his argument with Kalam, let's talk about causes. Kalam claims that the cause of the universe is some immensely powerful being 'outside' the universe. Except the MGB is the universe.
Problems...
I totally agree. The MOA denies the fundamental properties that the Christian God must have if the MOA is going to be used to support the existence of that particular God.

In fact, since the Christian God cannot be the same entity as Satan, or Adolf Hitler, or any other evil entity, then, by definition, the Christian God cannot even be an MGB (Maximally Great Being) because there are things it is restricted from being (i.e Satan, etc.). :D


This Brings Up a Very Interesting Question:

Would the MOA be a valid argument if we could ignore the real world and ignore the contradictions it has with Christianity as well.


Just take Christianity out of the picture entirely. After all Christianity is not actually mentioned in the MOA, the only reason it comes into play is because Christians attempt to use the MOA to prove that the Christian God exists which is clearly not compatible with the MGB defined for the MOA anyway.

But would the MOA be valid if we removed any reference or connection with Christianity and we disallowed observations of the real world to "count" in a purely philosophical argument that refuses to engage in "scientific observations of the real world" and demands that we must simply find a purely abstract logical reason why the argument is not logical?

Bust Nak has suggest that he can simply claim that he can imagine a world without any beings as being a possible world. He then states by argument #2 of the MOA that basically states:

2. If it is possible that X exists, then X exists in some possible world.

If I recall correctly Bust Nak supported argument #2 as being a perfectly logical TRUE statement.

If so, the then question becomes: Just because Bust Nak claims that it's possible for a world with no beings to exist, does it follow that this must actually be possible?

If so, then I would agree that Bust Nak busted the MOA right there. However, I find this to be a weak argument since Bust Nak never actually showed that a world without beings is actually possible. He merely claimed that he could imagine that such a world is possible. Proponents of the MOA could argue that if their MGB actually exists then a world without beings would not be possible because all worlds would need to at least include their MGB.

It seems to me that this would then just fizzle out into arguments over whether or not a world without beings should be considered to be "possible". And in the end they might need to just have to end up agreeing to disagree with each other on that point.

I would also suggest along these same lines we could simply claim that we can imagine a possible world that contains evil. (this should be especially easy for any human to "imagine") :D

Then by argument #2:

2. If it is possible that X exists, then X exists in some possible world.

Since an evil world is possible then it must exist as a possible world. But this then violates the claims that the MGB is both omnipresesnt in all worlds and omnibenevolent. If an non-benevolent world exists in any possible world then the MGB cannot be true as defined.

So if argument #2 is "Valid Logic" then it seems to me that #2 can easily be used to dismiss the MGB defined by the MOA.

Once again, the only argument the proponents of the MOA could make is to say "Prove it!" Prove that a non-benevolent world is possible.

But when we WAKE UP from our armchair stupor of pure philosophy and just look around at our actually world which is clearly a "possible world" we see that it's not benevolent.

So once the proponents of the MOA start demanding that we prove that a non-benevolent world is possible I think we would have every right to just roll our eyes and change the subject of conversation entirely.

So how's the wife and kids been doing? :-k

I mean seriously, there's no point in continuing to argue with a "pure philosopher" who refuses to acknowledge the real world as being at least one example of a "possible world". After all, we're here. That guarantees that our world is "possible". :D
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #8

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]
This Brings Up a Very Interesting Question:

Would the MOA be a valid argument if we could ignore the real world and ignore the contradictions it has with Christianity as well.
As in valid according to rules of logical arguments? Hmm...one of the problems I have with the MOA is that it asks us to consider the MGB possible, when I have no data to suggest it even can be. As far as I know, a perfect (or maximally great) circle cannot exist in our reality.
But if we do as you suggest...well, here's what happens.

[strike]1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists,[/strike][strike] then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. [/strike]

[strike]3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (our world).

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world[/strike], [strike]then a maximally great being exists.
[/strike]
6. [strike]Therefore, a maximally great being exists.[/strike]


I struck out anything to do with the real world. I struck out mentions of possible world since our actual real world IS a possible world.
Wow look at that. I just made the entire argument null and void. It's entirely stricken out.
But would the MOA be valid if we removed any reference or connection with Christianity and we disallowed observations of the real world to "count" in a purely philosophical argument that refuses to engage in "scientific observations of the real world" and demands that we must simply find a purely abstract logical reason why the argument is not logical?
If so...then the argument is pointless, useless. The proponent of the MOA seeks to use it to prove something about the real world, that there is in fact God.
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

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #9

Post by Bust Nak »

Divine Insight wrote: If I recall correctly Bust Nak supported argument #2 as being a perfectly logical TRUE statement...

... Proponents of the MOA could argue that if their MGB actually exists then a world without beings would not be possible... just fizzle out into arguments over whether or not a world without beings should be considered to be "possible".
That alone is enough to sink the MOA as question begging - it IS reduced to an argument over whether or not an MGB should be considered to possible. i.e. the very first premise of the argument.

Normally, those who just regurgitate the MOA without a good understanding in modal logic are quick to grant me that an empty world is possible without thinking about its implication. I just lead them down the garden path until they realise everything they say is equally applicable to the MGB.

As for the question in the OP, it seems For_The_Kingdom learnt from "the best." Both the argument itself and modus operandi (repeating same argument without variation on different opponent) reminds me of William Lane Craig.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #10

Post by Divine Insight »

Bust Nak wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: If I recall correctly Bust Nak supported argument #2 as being a perfectly logical TRUE statement...

... Proponents of the MOA could argue that if their MGB actually exists then a world without beings would not be possible... just fizzle out into arguments over whether or not a world without beings should be considered to be "possible".
That alone is enough to sink the MOA as question begging - it IS reduced to an argument over whether or not an MGB should be considered to possible. i.e. the very first premise of the argument.
Ok, that's fine. But then is that the only reason you can reject the MOA? Simply because it's "question begging"? :-k

If the question is whether or not the MGB is "possible" you should be able to actually answer that question, and then you've killed the argument. Otherwise, you've left the question unanswered, which is precisely what the proponents of the MOA are happy with. If you can't show why the MGB can't exist, then they hold that you must then leave the door open to the idea that it may very well be "possible".

This is why their step #2 becomes important. They claim that if you can't prove that the MGB is impossible, then they can continue with step #2 with the assumption that it is possible (or at the very least may be possible).

My argument against the MOA demonstrates clearly why the MGB cannot exist. I demonstrate that the very definition of the MGB is a contradiction with known reality. In other words, I show that there exists at least one world where the MGB cannot exist by the definition they gave. And that is our actual word.

My focus on step #4 is that they cannot then claim that the actual world cannot be used as evidence because their argument demands that their MGB exists in our world.

So I have proven that their MGB cannot exist.

All you've done is suggest to them that their MGB is "question begging" without being able to answer the question leaving them with the opportunity to say, "Well if you can't answer the question then you can't find any logical inconsistencies with the argument". Thus giving them room to claim that until you can answer the question they are justified in standing by their argument.

But step #4 gives away the folly of their tactics.

So in short Bust Nak, you have your argument against the MOA, and I have mine. That's fine. You can stick with your argument against it, and I'll stick with mine. :-k

And apparently your rejection of the MOA is to claim that it's "question begging" on a question you can't answer.

My rejection of the MOA is that it is clearly a logically flawed argument because I show why their MGB cannot possibly exist, allowing me to strike out their entire argument as clearly being false on ever single line just as rikuoamero in post #8.

In the meantime you keep telling the proponents of the MOA that there is nothing wrong with the bulk of their argument. I show where every single line fails to support their argument.

When I dismiss step #2, for example, it's not because I'm claiming that step #2 is "FALSE". Of course it's not false, it's a tautology! But that's totally irrelevant. I can still cross it off as failing in the MOA because it doesn't support their argument. Once I have shown that the MGB cannot exist, striking out step #2 as being irrelevant for the MOA is just fine.

In the meantime all you can say is that it's begging a question that you can't answer. And William Lane Craig would LOVE to hear that response. Just because you can't answer a question doesn't prove that his MGB can't exist.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Post Reply