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?

[rikuoamero]

The bolded section makes no sense to me as I believe I have conceived of a world without a MGB. We must have different definitions of what "conceiving" is. What is your definition?

You misunderstand. First Kingdom imagined a being. Then he imagined that this being has several properties. Among those properties is omni-presence. Being present everywhere in every possible world. But his being can't be present in every possible world since a world without beings at all is perfectly logically possible and present no logical contradiction. He just gave his imagined being an imaginary property that contradicts logic so he disqualified himself.

Wouldn't omni-presence end up meaning that the universe IS God? I imagine it somewhat like saying "The atoms that make up Rikuo's body are everywhere that Rikuo is", thus meaning that the atoms ARE Rikuo. I can't go anywhere without the atoms that make up my body, and the atoms that make up my body cannot go anywhere without 'me'. Thus, for all intents and purposes, we're one and the same.
However, the MOA can't have this. The MOA says that the MGB (which is now the universe) cannot fail to exist (as shown in Kingdom's preface), thus meaning there couldn't have been a state of "There was no universe...then there was". The universe would have always existed, uncreated, creatorless, thus sabotaging the intended purpose of the argument.

Of course, the above doesn't apply if omni-presence doesn't make the universe out to be God.

[Artie]

Wouldn't omni-presence end up meaning that the universe IS God?

Well, yes present everywhere is also logically impossible since we wouldn't be here writing posts if the space taken up by us was taken up by his MGB instead. But I think he also has a different definition of present than we do.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 440 by For_The_Kingdom]

Hi, For_The_Kingdom

"Upside down
Boy, you turn me
Inside out
And round and round
Upside down
Boy, you turn me
Inside out
And round and round"
- Dianna Ross

"but you of all people have yet to demonstrate why P1 is false".

Why don't we leave it up to the readers to decide? We have done nothing but demonstrate it over and over again. You don't seem to notice it. That's fine.

But not addressing our criticisms is not the way to demonstrate that P1 is TRUE.

Remember, whoever PROPOSES the argument has the burden of the proof to demonstrate that the premises are TRUE, and that the logic is valid.

NOT the other way around.

You are upside down.

You said you were finished with this thread, didn't ya?

[For_The_Kingdom]

We can perfectly well imagine worlds without any beings at all without running into any logical contradictions so by defining his being as present everywhere he gave his being a property that is logically contradictory.

If you can imagine a possible world without a MGB, then you are not imagining the being as defined in the MOA, but rather a contingent being...but the being as defined in the MOA is a NECESSARY being...and the only way such a being can conceived as nonexistent is if P1 is false and the being is deduced to a contingent being rather than the necessary being as it is defined in the argument.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I disagree with the first bolded section as I hold P1 to be true (I have conceived of a possible world with a MGB) and have still conceived of a possible world without a MGB.

The problem is, all propositions that are possibly necessarily true must be actually true. There is no such thing as a proposition that can be possibly necessarily true, but actually false...because if it is actually false, then it was never possibly necessarily true in the first place.

Because of this, I hold P3 to be false. I don't believe a MGB needs to exist in all possible worlds for it to have maximal greatness.

That would hold true if the being was contingent as opposed to necessary in its existence.

Saying that it must exist in a possible world in which one chose to conceive that it does not exist, is the same as saying a square circle must exist.

I don't follow.

The second bolded section makes me wonder. You must have a different definition of conception than I do for you to assert it. What is your definition of conception.

Conception: 2. the way in which something is perceived or regarded.

[For_The_Kingdom]

But his being can't be present in every possible world since a world without beings at all is perfectly logically possible and present no logical contradiction.

Um, no a "world without beings at all" isn't perfectly logical. False premises only lead to false conclusions.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Because we can all conceive of a possible world with no MGB in it.
Sorry for the one liner.

Again, I thought you were done with the thread? If you can conceive of a possible world at which there is no MGB, then the being isn't necessary, is it? No, it isn't.

So we are not talking about the same being.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Not only did I, way back yonder in my Post 7, but many others have made a trash heap of it throughout this thread.

As you wish to imply, no, as you state that others'd put their fingers in their ears and set to holler, I contend it's you that's guilty of doing it, as this thread so clearly shows.

I'll continue to point out your willful and blatant hypocrisy as long your accusation remains in the OP.

Yeah, that was post 7, but the thread now is almost at 50 pages..so in other words, your objections have been answered countless times since that post.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 461 (edit here cause I can't tell why the link went wrong):

Um, no a "world without beings at all" isn't perfectly logical. False premises only lead to false conclusions.

According to the OP, if we can imagine stuff, that makes that stuff real.



OP / For_The_Kingdom accuses others of covering their ears, and hollerin' to drown out the noise of dissent.

I propose it's OP / For_The_Kingdom who cups hands to ears, screaming madly at all arguments that refute his goofy, illogical OP.

Face it, make believe don't mean stuff's real.

OP / For_The_Kingdom, should be forever known as the hypocrite who accused, and lacked the intelligence to know when he's beat.

[Willum]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

Hi, Kingdom. I don't see a need for one at all.
Can you, I ask for the nth time, explain why you MGB is necessary?

I see absolutely no need at all.