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]

[Replying to post 67 by For_The_Kingdom]

Well, according to the soundness/validity of the KCA, a First Cause is needed...and according to the soundness/validty of the MOA, the First Cause is possible, and conceivable, and necessary.

You have two logically sound/valid arguments that corroborates the other.

We're talking about the Modal Ontological Argument here. Why are you throwing in a separate argument (Kalam) without even discussing it? You just toss in the KCA and declare it valid, all without even so much as actually naming it!

But that is the point, the argument makes a case for "such a being". It doesn't state who the being is and how the being manifests itself. It doesn't matter what you "call" it.

Answer me this honestly please. Who are the ONLY people who propose the Modal Ontological Argument? I can think of a name for this group of people. I've never heard of any other group proposing it.

In fact, the being that you call "Beyonder", is actually what we call "God". If Beyonder is omnipotent, ominscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, then that being is God.

Reread Willum's quote again. He talks about this Beyonder character as having tucked himself away in another universe, such that he is not anywhere else. This is not omnipresent.

God, with his omnipotence, can manifest himself into any being that he chooses...and if he chooses to manifest himself as the Beyonder, or the Christ, or the FSM, he can do so.

He can't manifest as the beyonder. Can an omnipresent being make himself non-omnipresent? Can God hide himself away in a single universe, away from all others?

And again, who are the only people seriously proposing the MOA?

A being that is powerful enough to create from nothing is also powerful enough to manifest itself in all places at one time.

You'll have to explain just why this being who can do the one thing, in your view, automatically is able to do the other thing. What if it's a being that can create from nothing but cannot manifest in all places?

Why stop there? Keep going back further and further, and let me know when you will get to the point where you can't go any further...I will wait.

Yes, scientists can only go so close to the Big Bang and no further (at the moment). Yet it seems that you just leapfrog what they are stuck with and are able to describe what scientists admit they'd have no justification to describe.
I dislike this. Instead of carefully following the evidence, even if it leads to an infinite regress, you just jump all the way back, leapfrogging everything before it and declare where you've landed to be the First Cause, all without evidence.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 67 by For_The_Kingdom]

Then the past is eternal....which is absurd.

Ok, I'm totally cherry picking here, but I had to respond to this.

You are suggesting an eternal past is absurd, yet an eternal God is not?

I think anything eternal fries my brain when I think about it too hard, but if you are going to grant one thing is absurd to being eternal, I think you are destroying your own argument for something else being eternal.

I think pink socks are absurd.

All hail pink shoes.

[Willum]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

OMG, you are so wrong, and you demonstrated that you don't have the ability to parameterize something less than a APE, so you certainly have no ability to speak even abstractly about any kind of APE.

You are not talking about a creator, because, as you have failed to acknowledge, the building blocks of the Universe; protons, electrons and their transformations, do not need a creator. They are observably and demonstratively immortal.

They are observably and demonstratively immortal.
They are observably and demonstratively immortal.
They are observably and demonstratively immortal.

This beginning of the Universe you so proudly pronounce as your trump card, is just another state of these fundamental particles. No creator needed. Like I mentioned to you: Bosons. If you compress protons and electrons, you get neutrons, compress neutrons, you get Bosons.

As for your comment about thermodynamics being magically different before creation. 1. Do you have any magic justification for that? Because otherwise it shows that you are completely ignorant of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics strength has nothing to do with beginnings or endings. It has to do with the particles, energies and available states. It does not change because of time, or indeed anything.

The God you have demonstrated you DO NOT remotely have the capacity to envision, cannot be shown to out-endure elementary particles. It can't even be shown to exist.

Yet elementary particles can be shown to exist forever, without a creator.

I am not sure how much clearer this can be. A proton, left to its own, will exist ten minutes from now, ten minutes ago, ten million years from now, ten million years ago.

One hundred trillion years from now, one hundred trillion years ago.

Before the creation event, that is your trump card, but not all the matter in the Universe is accounted for by any creation event, therefor, elementary particles could easily exist around it.

If you are talking about a Biblical God, even if we accept everything you say from the Bible as true, you can not justify God predating the creation of the Earth. You certainly have no claims on it being the first cause.

You are not clever by proposing that before a creation event occurred, there was a creator, because, the creation event, was just a transformation from Bosons to the particles we are familiar with.

I am not sure how this can be clearer.

[fredonly]

I apologize if this has already been discussed, but one of the flaws in the modal ontological argument is a conflation of two different modalities.

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.

If God (or an MGB) exists, his existence is a metaphysical necessity. If I say that I think it's possible that such a being exists, this is in terms of epistemic possibility (i.e. as far as I know an MGB might exist). Epistemic possibility and metaphysical possibility are not identical.

An atheist could reasonably say, "it is epistemically possible that a metaphysically necessary God exist."

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 67 by For_The_Kingdom]

But that is the point, the argument makes a case for "such a being". It doesn't state who the being is and how the being manifests itself. It doesn't matter what you "call" it.

In fact, the being that you call "Beyonder", is actually what we call "God". If Beyonder is omnipotent, ominscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, then that being is God.

God, with his omnipotence, can manifest himself into any being that he chooses...and if he chooses to manifest himself as the Beyonder, or the Christ, or the FSM, he can do so.

So your objection does not pose any threat to the legitimacy of the argument.

There's all kinds of objections to your argument, most of which you haven't responded to or touched on. That doesn't mean they just went away, Kingdom...

On top of that fact, you've just made it worse for yourself. Nothing can be "omnipotent, ominscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent" all at the same time. It's an illogical claim.

Um, my knowledge of physics is the universe began to exist, and if the universe began to exist, then so did natural law.

And it is obvious to anyone with common sense that if the universe began to exist, whatever gave it its beginning could not itself be a product of it.

The universe did begin to exist, in its current format. Where that start came from is the big question. But it is wrong to say that the universe could not be a product of itself, when it has been proven to be "nothing" broken up into pieces. The universe is not a change from nothing, it IS nothing, just in a different configuration. I've explained this to you before, please refer to those threads for a refresher on the topic.

Therefore, an external, supernatural cause is necessary. Now, that is a conclusion that just flows logically/naturally from the premises, and the only thing you can do at that point is try to argue that the universe is either eternal, or it owes its existence to a prior-natural cause....both of those explanations are equally absurd, and that is something that I will demonstrate in my next thread.

A being that is powerful enough to create from nothing is also powerful enough to manifest itself in all places at one time.

Not only is it not necessary, it's illogical. If you have the time I'd love to read your replies to the responses that people took the time you give you in this thread that pointed out some logical flaws in your OP.

[For_The_Kingdom]

If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in every possible world this then entails nothing is impossible for a maximally great being, other than those things found in impossible worlds. In fact "maximally great" must mean "a being for which nothing that is possible is impossible" if the argument is to be valid. If maximally great does not mean this then the argument is invalid because it is not valid to conclude a being for which some possible things are not possible consequently exists in every possible world.

I agree...I think..

The implicit condition is moot to say the least. We cannot be certain about the premise, therefore the argument may not be sound.

It is sound. If it is conceivable, there is a possible world at which the proposition that it relates to is true...and only logically sound propositions are conceivable, so therefore, it is at least possible for God to exist....therefore, the premise is sound.

Also: it is not clear that if there were such a being this meets the criteria of a god let alone God.

But that is irrelevant to the argument. No matter what you call it, the fact of the matter is, no greater being can be conceived. Now, theists call the being that which no greater being can be conceived...we call that being "God".

If you don't like what it is called, fine...change the word...but changing the word does nothing to negate the argument.

For example it may not be possible for a being to know everything, or be everywhere, or will itself to travel faster than the speed of light, or even to will itself under its own power to travel much more than a hundred miles an hour. The worlds in which we imagine such things may not be possible, and thus prove to be no more than flights of fancy. If so they belong in the realm of impossible worlds.

If necessary truths are possible, then they are true. If you admit that the existence of a MGB is possible, then by default, a MGB must exists.

I think there is a major equivocation here over the use of the word "possible". If someone is uncertain they may say "it is possible" but that does commit them to it actually being possible.

If something is "possible", then that possibility must be actualized in some possible word. If it is possible for a MGB to exist, then there is at least one possible world at which he/it exists...but since his existence would be necessary (if he does exist), then he would have to exist in every & all possible worlds, which would include the actual world...ours.

They don't know. For the more atheistic person saying it is possible is like hypothetically accepting as true the opening premise of the modal argument. Yes we can play that game. But likely the reason we do is we can't prove the premise is exactly false.

Right, but for necessary truths, all it takes is the mere possibility for the proposition to be true in order for it to be actually true.

But failure to disprove - which leads us to mumble the words it may be possible - is not a commitment to a possible world in which a maximal being exists. The use of the word possible here, or any synonym, is an epistemological admission not an ontological commitment.

You are, actually, committing yourself to an ontological commitment. A proposition cannot be possibly necessarily true, but actually false.

If you say a MGB's existence is possible, yet, a MGB doesn't exist, then how could the possibility ever be actualized? If it is a possibility, then there is a SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES that will/should allow the possibility to be actualized.

But you can't reach necessity based off of contingent circumstances. So if it possible for a MGB to exist, then it is impossible for a MGB to NOT exist.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 75 by For_The_Kingdom]

You have yet to show that it is necessary for it to exist. I look forward to your explanation of why it is necessary whenever you get a chance to do so...

[For_The_Kingdom]

Ok, sure. Why not? Many things are possible until shown to be otherwise.

7 / 13971249732473597437937493249273927392739723977475775759393292

"It is possble for 7 to be divided by the above number evenly, until shown to be otherwise".

Do you see the point that I am making?

Wait, what? What the hell just happened? How does allowing for something as possible suddenly morph into that possibility therefore existing?

Because all propositions that are possibly necessarily true must be actually true. So in other words, if it was possible that 2+2=7, then 2+2 would actually = 7, wouldn't it? In the same tune, if it is possible for a MGB to exist, it would actually exist, wouldn't it?

Hmmm.

And in a world that is also apparently only a possibility, no less? Did we just say we could imagine a world in which we could imagine a maximally great being existing and then it became true that both imaginings are somehow physically real due to the aforementioned imaginings? Ka-Blooey! That's the sound of imploding logic in a forest where no one is around to hear it.

I don't follow.

This argument is toast already, but I want to play on to the showcase.

I don't mean to brag, I don't mean to boast / but this argument is hot, like butter on your breakfast toast.

It in no way logically follows that Possibility X turning out to exist in location A therefore simultaneously means Possibility X exists everywhere.

Follow me closely; If God (MGB) exists, his existence is NECESSARILY true, which means that in the same sense that 2+2=4 is necessarily true and under no circumstances will it ever become untrue...in that same sense, God's existence is true, and under no circumstances will it become untrue.

2+2=4 is a NECESSARY truth, meaning that in all possible scenarios, worlds, and circumstances, 2+2 will always equal = 4. So in that same way, since God's existence is necessarily true, it is necessary in ALL POSSIBLE worlds, which means that if God exists in Jupiter, he also exists on Earth, and any other planet, universe, world, wherever.

More to the point, if it DID exist everywhere, it is no longer a maximally great being, but beingSsss. Plural.

That line of reasoning only applies to finite, material beings that can only occupy a finite amount of space at any given time. But that DOESN'T apply to a Supreme Omni Being, does it?

If we grant the first three silly notions, this one actually does logically follow. It's not saying much, though.

Oh, it is saying a lot...in all possible worlds

If everyone has herpes, it follows that I, too, have herpes.

TMI.

This is another premise that isn't saying anything worthwhile. It's not unsound, but nor is it helpful. If banjo-playing frogs exist in Texas, then banjo-playing frogs exist. Brilliant.

Is it the same?

Therefore, nothing. Therefore, you can imagine something, say that the imagined something 'exists' at least as something imagined, give it status as a possibility alongside imagining other possible universes/worlds, and presto-change-o! It exists.

That is not what is going on with the MOA.

So. According to Christian theism (that's you in the OP), you've already defined ''God'' to have all the attributes necessary to avoid the syllogism in the first place!.

How?

What obligation is anyone under to accept theism's definition of ''God'' as in any way useful or verifiable?

The refusal to accept the definition of "God" does nothing to negate the argument. The argument is what it is.

Not to mention when you plug in any ''necessary'' agency into a premise chain in which the outcome pivots on what is... necessary.., well, you'll get your 4 quarters for a dollar every time.

The truth value of the argument is independent of how it is defined. The premises are either true or false, regardless of how it is defined and what word is used. So for example, I love my wife and I think she is beautiful, therefore...

1. My wife is necessarily beautiful
2. My wife is necessarily good enough to be a beauty queen
3. Therefore, my wife will necessarily win the beauty queen pageant this year

See, I just plugged in "necessary" into the premise chain and also the conclusion. Yet, if my wife enters the pageant and doesn't win, that would mean that there was something "off" about the two premises, doesn't it?

So obviously, how I defined the argument has NOTHING to do with the truth value of the premises of the argument. So it isn't "you've defined God into existed", rather, it is "the conclusion of the argument is supported by true premises that preceded it".

Substitute a God-eating-penguin named Eric, a maximally great God-eating-penguin named Eric of which no greater can be imagined, and enjoy the show.

Can a maximally great God manifest himself as a "God eating penguin"? Yes, he can. It is within his power.

So the argument remains in tact and unscathed.

[Kenisaw]

Because all propositions that are possibly necessarily true must be actually true. So in other words, if it was possible that 2+2=7, then 2+2 would actually = 7, wouldn't it? In the same tune, if it is possible for a MGB to exist, it would actually exist, wouldn't it?

Hmmm.

Not a valid comparison, because 2+2 = 7 is 100% verifiable or falsifiable. AN MGB is merely possible, but does not have to be true or false. You've compared apples to fire hydrants. An MGB is also a claim devoid of evidence that cannot be shown to be a requirement for anything. It is not necessary in other words. A possibility does not equate necessary...

Follow me closely; If God (MGB) exists, his existence is NECESSARILY true, which means that in the same sense that 2+2=4 is necessarily true and under no circumstances will it ever become untrue...in that same sense, God's existence is true, and under no circumstances will it become untrue.

2+2=4 is a NECESSARY truth, meaning that in all possible scenarios, worlds, and circumstances, 2+2 will always equal = 4. So in that same way, since God's existence is necessarily true, it is necessary in ALL POSSIBLE worlds, which means that if God exists in Jupiter, he also exists on Earth, and any other planet, universe, world, wherever.

Nope. Let's ignore your false logic switch from possible to necessary for a moment, as well as the other holes in the argument, and focus in on something different. If your god creature exists, that still doesn't prove that it created anything. You do realize this, right? Existence of a god creature does not prove it did anything. For all you know it exists and the universe happened completely naturally while the god creature ignored the whole thing completely...

[quote[That line of reasoning only applies to finite, material beings that can only occupy a finite amount of space at any given time. But that DOESN'T apply to a Supreme Omni Being, does it?[/quote]

Unfortunately there are logical holes in the claim that a being is omni everything...

The truth value of the argument is independent of how it is defined. The premises are either true or false, regardless of how it is defined and what word is used. So for example, I love my wife and I think she is beautiful, therefore...

1. My wife is necessarily beautiful
2. My wife is necessarily good enough to be a beauty queen
3. Therefore, my wife will necessarily win the beauty queen pageant this year

See, I just plugged in "necessary" into the premise chain and also the conclusion. Yet, if my wife enters the pageant and doesn't win, that would mean that there was something "off" about the two premises, doesn't it?

So obviously, how I defined the argument has NOTHING to do with the truth value of the premises of the argument. So it isn't "you've defined God into existed", rather, it is "the conclusion of the argument is supported by true premises that preceded it".

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/

This might help you understand why your inference and reciprocity requirements are not being met.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 75 by For_The_Kingdom]

Either Kingdom is ignoring me or has me blocked. Either one is a compliment I suppose, but it's a shame he doesn't respond to most of the people participating in this exercise...