The Modal Ontological Argument

[For_The_Kingdom]

Before I begin the actual argument, a few terms/concepts must be addressed. One of those concepts involves possible world semantics. What is a possible world (PW)?

A PW is a set of circumstances or any proposition that could be true, or could be falseor a set of circumstances or any proposition that could be necessarily true, or necessarily false.

Example: Barack Obama is the President of the United States.

If this statement is true, then there is a possible world at which Barack Obama is President of the United States. However, since Barack Obama could very well NOT be the President of the U.S., then it follows that there is a possible world at which Barack Obama isnt President of the U.S.

So, in essence, there is a possible world (set of circumstances) at which Barack Obama is the President of the U.S. (and vice versa). In other words, its possible.

That being said; lets turn our attention to the difference between contingent truths, and necessary truths. Contingent truths are circumstances or propositions that could be true, but could also be equally false (such as the example above).

Necessary truths are truths that are either true or false REGARDLESS of the circumstances. So in essence, necessary truths are true in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS. Good examples of necessary truths are mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4 <--- this is true in all possible circumstances and can never be false under any circumstance.

Next, Id like to turn the attention to the definition of God. God, at least as defined by Christian theism, is a maximally great being (MGB). By maximally great, we mean that God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere at any given time), and omnibenevolent (the ultimate source of goodness)an ultimately, such a being is necessary in its existence (such a being cannot fail/cease to exist).

The four "omni's"that you see above, those are what we'd called "great making properties." A person is considered "great" based on accomplishments, power, influence, character, etc.

Being a maximally great being, all of those great-making properties are maxed out to the degree at which there isn't anything left to add. It is virtually impossible to think of a "greater being" than one that is all-knowing, all powerful, present everywhere, and the ultimate source of goodness.

Now, the Modal Ontological Argument makes a case that it is possible for such a being to actually exist. In other words; there is a possible world at which a MGB exists.

On to the argument..

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists

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

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, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Of course, most of you will agree that it is possible for a MGB to exist. The problem is, once you admit that it is possible for a MGB to exist, you are essentially saying It is possible for a necessary being to exist.

Well, if it is possible for a necessary being to exist, then it follows that such a being must ACTUALLY exist. Why? Because a proposition cannot be possibly necessarily true, but actually false (because if the proposition is actually false, then it was never possibly necessarily true).

Again, most of you admit that it is possible for God to exist. Well, if it is possible for God to exist, then God must actually exist, because Gods existence would be one of necessity, and no necessary truth can be possibly true, but actually false.

And under the same token, if it is possible for God to NOT exist, then it is impossible for God to exist. So, Gods existence is either necessarily true, or necessarily false. And again for the third time, at some point in each and every one of your lives, youve admitted that it is possible for God to exist.

Therefore, God must exist. And as I close this argument, just for the record, it will take more than you people putting your hand over your ears and shouting The argument is not valid or whatever you like to say when a theist bring forth an argument.

You actually have to address the argument (1-5), and explain why any of the premises are false. But I dont think that you can, can you?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Here is the same mistake again. You take an example that supports your definition and ask the critic to disprove it. But you fail to consider alternative definitions.

Then simply give me a possible world/scenario at which 2+2=7. If you can't do that, then you should be able to see the nature of necessity, and how necessary truths are true in all possible words...and anything less than that is contingent.

You keep talking about all of these different definitions of necessity, yet, you cannot apply any of those definitions to the actual scenario......of how there is only one way to look at necessity...and that is acknowledging the fact that 2+2 will always equal 4...no matter what definition of necessity that you use.

So, this whole "but that is only one definition of necessity, what about the others?" thing doesn't change the overall outcome or truth value of the proposition...2+2 will always equal 4, it is a necessary truth...and I simply challenge you to give me any other definition of necessity that will undercut this truth.

The challenge is there for all to see...so what are you gonna do?

If something is true in every conceivable world then it is surely necessary. But there are other definitions of necessary your definition does not include.

Like what?

So take the example I used previously. Imagine there are worlds in which is is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light.

In these worlds the speed of light is a constant and the speed limit is never open to change. Now imagine a parallel universe in which the speed of light is variable and faster than light travel is achievable. Imagine yourself with the power to switch between worlds. In the world where there is a speed limit you are limited to the speed limit because it is impossible to break that limit. In the parallel universe you are allowed more freedom and can go faster.

Ok, so I changed worlds, and now I can travel faster than the speed of light...which means that there is a possible world at which I am able to travel faster than the speed of light..

However, since there is at least one possible world at which I am NOT able to travel faster than the speed of light (the actual world), that would mean that my traveling faster than the speed of light (or ability to) is not necessary..but rather, contingent.

If my ability to travel faster than the speed of light was necessary, then there would be no possible world at which I would be unable to, yet, even in your scenario, there is at least one possible world at which I AM unable to.

So when you say if an MGB is possible maybe such a thing cannot break the local laws and limits that are necessary in the world they apply.

But however you take this you are still ignoring the bulk of modal logic. How can you do that with a straight face?

I don't think you've proven what you set out to prove, good sir.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Hi Kingdom,
What if I can prove 2 + 2 = 11, will that satisfy you enough to try to understand others' posts?

No, that will not "satisfy me enough to try to understand others post".

[Willum]

[Replying to post 271 by For_The_Kingdom]

Well, then, I challenge your idea of a maximally great being. A maximally great being might be the Blue Whale, with the universe not having the capacity to generate anything more maximally.

What say you?

Incidentally, can you say why 2 + 2 = 11 isn't good enough?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Sure, you can systematically deny whatever you choose...but when it comes to questions like "what reasons do you have to conclude that God cannot possibly exist"..when it comes to questions like that, the atheists' bag is empty.
That's not true, look at the reasons we gave in the older thread, look at this very thread.

Okey dokey.

But that's besides the point - You were supposed to provide support for the premise which, in your own words: "isn't sufficient." You never felt the need to give support to any of the premises, because you assumed that most of us would just go along with it.

Throughout the thread I provided support.

Evidence says otherwise. I provided a link to an old thread on the same topic, you might have missed that, but I don't know how you could miss me mentioning the problem of evil

Fine...create a thread on the topic and I will be there.

, long have skeptics argued against the possibility of God as you defined it. Regardless of how valid you think the problem of evil is, you cannot say we haven't been claiming that God is not merely non-existent, but impossible.

Ok, the problem of evil is ONE argument...while Plantiga gave about two dozen or so arguments for the existence of God.

As much as I can dig any other question begging arguments.

Who is begging the question? P1 is true.

When the most important bit of the argument (re:God's definition) is sitting in the preamble and not as part of the syllogism, I think I am justified in calling it a sleight of hand. Is a magic trick any less a magic trick if the performer reveals how he is doing it? But like I said, credit where it is due, you did spell it out clearly in said preamble.

Well, if you admit that it spelled it out, what is the problem? What is your beef? It is almost as if you are criticizing me for not spelling it out, but at the same time giving me props for spelling it out.

This should have been completely obvious, that you say you don't see the significance is telling. The definition of God as a necessary being is relevant to the argument because:

a) the truth of P1 depends on what kind of god you are talking about; and b) Step 3 may or may not be valid depending on what kind of god you are talking about.

I thought I was challenging the relevance of the question of "Why must God be necessary?" as opposed to "What is the definition of God".

Both the soundness and the validity of the argument hang in the balance depending on the definition of God and you didn't see how it is relevant? That's why I kept telling you, you can't define God into existence. You need to justify treating God as a necessary being.

I gave the definition of a certain being, and stated that it is possible for the being to exist as P1 of the argument.

P1 is either true, or false. Throughout this thread of 20+ pages, I've given reasons as to why P1 is true.

Don't know what more you want.

And if the KCA argument is sound, then KCA alone is enough to prove the existence of God without the need to jump through hoops with modal logic. That literally was the first thing I told you all the way back on page 3. The MOA is redundant even if it is somehow sound.

If the KCA is false, then the MOA is false.

It is easier to point out exactly where the fault is when it is numbered as part of the syllogism, it's harder to spot when it is part of the preface. You think cool-ness is a function of transparency?

That is why you read the entire thread instead of bits and pieces.

Aye, that you did, but that has nothing to do with what I said. You were suggesting that we didn't understand enough about the argument to deny P1

I did?

Sometimes. The Judeo-Christian God isn't typically defined as a logical necessity you know.

Oh, I didn't know that.

You say that, but have a look at the old thread, we are saying the same things now as we did back then. And I have to point out again, I counted only 4 out of 13 ever granted you P1.

That is why I said we have to be honest with ourselves and ask how many of us denied the impossibility of God existing before they heard of the MOA.

Whatever gave you that impression? I am pointing out that you haven't given sufficient support for defining God as necessary, something that you readily admitted to yourself, even in this very post. How exactly does that imply I haven't been following?

I told you that such a question will be answered in the KCA thread...but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the truth value of the proposition "It is possible that a MGB exist".

I don't want you to think I am being facetious here, either. I just don't see the relevance...I mean here I am saying that "It is possible for a MGB to exist", and here you are saying "Why define a MGB that way"?....well, WHY NOT, if that is the case..the question is just irrelevant to the argument.

Not that it can't be answered, either...it is just a question that is irrelevant to what the argument is seeking to demonstrate.

Sure, they should have been more careful, but that's the point. It's about catching people off guard, when they aren't paying full attention, and you know they aren't paying attention because they say God might or might not exist in response.

How am I catching them off guard when "God" is defined in the OP? It is right there!! Yet, they are caught off guard?

Easy enough, I've already mentioned the problem of evil for dealing with the Omni-X style gods, here is one that specifically deal with necessary gods, for all X:

1) If there is a possible world where a being X does not exist then X does not have necessary existence.

I agree.

2) A world that has no sentient beings is one such possible world where the being X does not exist.

Then X' existence is not necessary.

3) Therefore X does not have necessary existence.

Ok...what does this have to do with a MGB, whose existence is necessary in all possible worlds? Nothing.

Another good, ole fashioned syllogism. Can you dig it?

I see what you did there

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 262 by Inigo Montoya]

Did we just demonstrate Santa = YHVH?

Santa is an elf.. so you've also "demon"strated that God is an elf.

:0

[Willum]

[Replying to post 271 by Willum]

Addendum:

And what I mean by the whale is that:

Being a maximally great being, all of those great-making properties are maxed out to the degree at which there isn't anything left to add. It is virtually impossible to think of a "greater being" than one that is all-knowing, all powerful, present everywhere, and the ultimate source of goodness.

Can you actually describe a creature greater than a Blue Whale? Without generality, I mean. You can easily describe the Sun, for example, and it is obviously greater than a Blue Whale, but it is not a being.

So, can you describe a creature greater than, say a blue whale, cogently, without relying on words that are definitions? Like All-powerful?

By example, the Sun is powerful because of Nuclear fusion. A whale is powerful because of a sophisticated set of muscles co-ordinated by a nervous system, that we can further observe/describe.

What is the greatest MGB you can conceive of, sans the use of magic?

Thank you for your consideration.

[Artie]

Next, Id like to turn the attention to the definition of God. God, at least as defined by Christian theism, is a maximally great being (MGB). By maximally great, we mean that God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere at any given time), and omnibenevolent (the ultimate source of goodness)an ultimately, such a being is necessary in its existence (such a being cannot fail/cease to exist).

Sorry if this has been answered but why exactly couldn't such a being fail to exist?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 271 by Willum]

Addendum:

And what I mean by the whale is that:

Being a maximally great being, all of those great-making properties are maxed out to the degree at which there isn't anything left to add. It is virtually impossible to think of a "greater being" than one that is all-knowing, all powerful, present everywhere, and the ultimate source of goodness.

Can you actually describe a creature greater than a Blue Whale? Without generality, I mean. You can easily describe the Sun, for example, and it is obviously greater than a Blue Whale, but it is not a being.

So, can you describe a creature greater than, say a blue whale, cogently, without relying on words that are definitions? Like All-powerful?

By example, the Sun is powerful because of Nuclear fusion. A whale is powerful because of a sophisticated set of muscles co-ordinated by a nervous system, that we can further observe/describe.

What is the greatest MGB you can conceive of, sans the use of magic?

Thank you for your consideration.

A blue whale sucks at running on the tundra.. I say elk.

[rikuoamero]

Next, Id like to turn the attention to the definition of God. God, at least as defined by Christian theism, is a maximally great being (MGB). By maximally great, we mean that God is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (present everywhere at any given time), and omnibenevolent (the ultimate source of goodness)an ultimately, such a being is necessary in its existence (such a being cannot fail/cease to exist).

Sorry if this has been answered but why exactly couldn't such a being fail to exist?

That's precisely the problem here. That bit about 'not failing to exist' is why the MOA, in my eyes, is an invalid logical argument. It's sneaking in the conclusion to the logical argument in to the premises. It's why this big long discussion for the past week. Kingdom is trying to prove the existence of his favoured deity, and there he goes, sticking in the conclusion right at the start, in his premise.

As an aside...
Take a look at omnipresent. Present everywhere at any given time, or as I'd like to say, present at every point in the space time continuum. This essentially makes God the universe, or God = the universe. There's interesting things we can say with that. If God cannot fail to exist, then this means the universe cannot fail to exist. This would mean though that there wasn't a creation (a 'moment' where there was no universe, then there was a universe). This would rule out the Christian God of the Bible, who most explicitly is claimed to have done a creation.
Just to be clear to readers - I don't believe this myself for an instant. It's just what I can see is able to be done with the MOA, what we're able to think about.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 253 by WinePusher]


Moderator Comment

Hello Winepusher! The overall tone in this post isn't very pleasant, it is actually quite condescending. In the future, please just address the issues, and not the poster.

Thank you so very much!!

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.