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 false…or 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 isn’t 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, it’s possible.
That being said; let’s 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, I’d 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 God’s 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, God’s 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, you’ve 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 don’t think that you can, can you?
The Modal Ontological Argument
Moderator: Moderators
-
For_The_Kingdom
- Guru
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm
-
PghPanther
- Guru
- Posts: 1242
- Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:18 pm
- Location: Parts Unknown
Post #2
You can leverage the a word game and logical play to obtain any validation you want but it doesn't demonstrate that your claim exists within reality as best as we can know it without any evidence.
All you have done is play a game with words.
Point number #1 say is it possible......what in your imagination?......sure it can, but in reality?.......well you have to validate that with evidence before you make that statement.
I'll give you point #2 but you can't get there from point #1 as you have claimed.
Point #3 is an assumption that you cannot make............just because a UFO exists in some possible world doesn't mean it exists in all possible worlds.
Point #4 is another fail...............you can't get to all possible worlds in point #3 so how would you get to an actual world??
No way you can get to Point #5 at all with all the problems listed above..........
Who thinks up all these childish word games and thinks they are clever anyway?
Garbage in garbage out......this is foolish.
Demonstrate your claims of a supreme being by the results of its actions in reality beginning with something like a demonstrated miracle..............just one......once....ever occurring the defies the laws of nature........
All you have done is play a game with words.
Point number #1 say is it possible......what in your imagination?......sure it can, but in reality?.......well you have to validate that with evidence before you make that statement.
I'll give you point #2 but you can't get there from point #1 as you have claimed.
Point #3 is an assumption that you cannot make............just because a UFO exists in some possible world doesn't mean it exists in all possible worlds.
Point #4 is another fail...............you can't get to all possible worlds in point #3 so how would you get to an actual world??
No way you can get to Point #5 at all with all the problems listed above..........
Who thinks up all these childish word games and thinks they are clever anyway?
Garbage in garbage out......this is foolish.
Demonstrate your claims of a supreme being by the results of its actions in reality beginning with something like a demonstrated miracle..............just one......once....ever occurring the defies the laws of nature........
Post #3
Pgh Panther asked:
And aren't you trying to compare a "necessary being" and something "necessarily true."
You've evidently fallen into circular reasoning.
ANSWER: Theologians. That's so they can write and sell their books.Who thinks up all these childish word games and thinks they are clever anyway?
ANSWER: Sure it can. A proposition can be true sometimes but false other times.And "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).
And aren't you trying to compare a "necessary being" and something "necessarily true."
You've evidently fallen into circular reasoning.
Last edited by polonius on Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #4
I call MGBs, All-Powerful Entities (APEs).
I would like to call your attention to the Marvel Comic Book "Beyonder," who was an APE, but tucked himself into another Universe because he wanted to, and was still an APE. So, with #3 safely out of the way, we can talk about #1.
Only a fool would assume #1 was possible. That would be an Entity that could do anything, anywhere, anytime.
Premise 1: The only possible need for such a creature would be to describe the erroneous or impossible characteristics of something like the Judeo-Christian God. Since this God, or any other you can name doesn't need infinite powers except to do impossible things required for the particular religion to make sense, you don't need such an APE to exist unless you have the religion.
So unless there is a reasonable need for an APE, there is no basis to assume it exists. Hope is not a valid reason.
APEs do not describe anything. There is nothing in the Universe that would change without one, and since matter is neither created nor destroyed, we need no APE to create anything.
Premise 2: Something capable of doing anything, anytime anywhere would require infinite amounts of potential energy to do it, and would have to be located wherever it needed it done. Since energy has mass, it would have to have significant mass everywhere. By E=mc2, we don't find any unexplained mass, therefor, no APE.
So, logically we do not require an APE. Scientifically we do not require an APE. Religiously, it is only required to explain why inconsistencies in religious claims do not match reality.
V/R
I would like to call your attention to the Marvel Comic Book "Beyonder," who was an APE, but tucked himself into another Universe because he wanted to, and was still an APE. So, with #3 safely out of the way, we can talk about #1.
Only a fool would assume #1 was possible. That would be an Entity that could do anything, anywhere, anytime.
Premise 1: The only possible need for such a creature would be to describe the erroneous or impossible characteristics of something like the Judeo-Christian God. Since this God, or any other you can name doesn't need infinite powers except to do impossible things required for the particular religion to make sense, you don't need such an APE to exist unless you have the religion.
So unless there is a reasonable need for an APE, there is no basis to assume it exists. Hope is not a valid reason.
APEs do not describe anything. There is nothing in the Universe that would change without one, and since matter is neither created nor destroyed, we need no APE to create anything.
Premise 2: Something capable of doing anything, anytime anywhere would require infinite amounts of potential energy to do it, and would have to be located wherever it needed it done. Since energy has mass, it would have to have significant mass everywhere. By E=mc2, we don't find any unexplained mass, therefor, no APE.
So, logically we do not require an APE. Scientifically we do not require an APE. Religiously, it is only required to explain why inconsistencies in religious claims do not match reality.
V/R
Last edited by Willum on Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Tired of the Nonsense
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5680
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
- Location: USA
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: The Modal Ontological Argument
Post #5[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]
psychosis
noun, psy·cho·sis \sī-ˈk�-səs\
Simple Definition of psychosis
: a very serious mental illness that makes you behave strangely or believe things that are not true
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psychosis
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists
Okay, fair enough. Emphasis on the word possible.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
Since none of us possesses the infinite knowledge required to know all ultimate possibilities, this is not an unreasonable assessment. It is NOT a proven fact however. It's a possibility which is unprovable.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
And this, I am afraid, is simply stupid. It's nothing more than claiming, for example, that if it's possible that Popeye exists in some world, therefore Popeye exists in every world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (our world).
A maximally great being exists in our world in EXACTLY the same way that Popeye exists in our world. We all possess a concept of Popeye. The concept has no physical reality however.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
A maximally great being clearly exists as a concept. As do Popeye and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. These things can NOT be shown to have any physical reality however. You are essentially claiming that anything one can imagine in their head not only has some potential reality, but has actual physical reality. And that is the very definition of foolish.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
The entire exercise above is an example of watching someone chasing their tail and getting exactly nowhere.
The important thing to consider here is that Barack Obama is the president of the United States in the world that WE live in. If some small minority of individuals believe that they live in a world where someone else is currently the president of the United States then they may well be suffering from a type of mental condition known as psychosis.For_The_Kingdom wrote: 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 false…or 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 isn’t President of the U.S.
psychosis
noun, psy·cho·sis \sī-ˈk�-səs\
Simple Definition of psychosis
: a very serious mental illness that makes you behave strangely or believe things that are not true
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psychosis
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists
Okay, fair enough. Emphasis on the word possible.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
Since none of us possesses the infinite knowledge required to know all ultimate possibilities, this is not an unreasonable assessment. It is NOT a proven fact however. It's a possibility which is unprovable.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
And this, I am afraid, is simply stupid. It's nothing more than claiming, for example, that if it's possible that Popeye exists in some world, therefore Popeye exists in every world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (our world).
A maximally great being exists in our world in EXACTLY the same way that Popeye exists in our world. We all possess a concept of Popeye. The concept has no physical reality however.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
A maximally great being clearly exists as a concept. As do Popeye and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. These things can NOT be shown to have any physical reality however. You are essentially claiming that anything one can imagine in their head not only has some potential reality, but has actual physical reality. And that is the very definition of foolish.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
The entire exercise above is an example of watching someone chasing their tail and getting exactly nowhere.
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense on Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.-
Kenisaw
- Guru
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
- Location: St Louis, MO, USA
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Re: The Modal Ontological Argument
Post #6[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]
Before I begin I will state for the record that philosophy is a rung below the scientific method on the ladder of being able to understand things,. We all know that in philosophy it is possible to get a true outcome that is, in reality, totally false. This is because philosophy uses premises to set up the argument, as opposed to data or empirical evidence in the scientific method. Philosophy is conjecture in other words, with no information required to support any claim (premise) that is made.
On to your post.
1) We can agree to this conditionally, although there is no evidence supporting that this is, in fact, possible.
2) The only universe known to exist (which I assume is meant by "world") is the one you and I are in. To claim a sufficient number of worlds exist so that one of them has a creative being in it is unsupported speculation. And that's still assuming that it even is, in fact, possible for such a critter to exist in the first place.
3) False logic. Just because something can exist in a possible world does that mean that it can exist in all worlds. Why? You have to prove that all the worlds are the same or similar so that this can be true. That requires proving that the other worlds exist, proving that the god creature exists, and proving that they all capable of having such a creature inside them. I don't believe anyone is going to take the time and effort to do that...
4) Wrong, because possible worlds are not this world. If the god creature is possible, then prove it exists in this world. If you cannot, there is no rational reason to conclude that it does.
5) by now the whole thing has fallen apart...
If you use your argument than your also have agree that literally every single god ever invented by man must exist. You have to agree that a monster that kills gods exist to. You'd have to agree that it is possible such a maximum great being does NOT exist, which gayer running it through means the bing can't possible exist. Can't have both true at the same time, but both are true under your argument.
This particular argument is an utter disaster...
Before I begin I will state for the record that philosophy is a rung below the scientific method on the ladder of being able to understand things,. We all know that in philosophy it is possible to get a true outcome that is, in reality, totally false. This is because philosophy uses premises to set up the argument, as opposed to data or empirical evidence in the scientific method. Philosophy is conjecture in other words, with no information required to support any claim (premise) that is made.
On to your post.
1) We can agree to this conditionally, although there is no evidence supporting that this is, in fact, possible.
2) The only universe known to exist (which I assume is meant by "world") is the one you and I are in. To claim a sufficient number of worlds exist so that one of them has a creative being in it is unsupported speculation. And that's still assuming that it even is, in fact, possible for such a critter to exist in the first place.
3) False logic. Just because something can exist in a possible world does that mean that it can exist in all worlds. Why? You have to prove that all the worlds are the same or similar so that this can be true. That requires proving that the other worlds exist, proving that the god creature exists, and proving that they all capable of having such a creature inside them. I don't believe anyone is going to take the time and effort to do that...
4) Wrong, because possible worlds are not this world. If the god creature is possible, then prove it exists in this world. If you cannot, there is no rational reason to conclude that it does.
5) by now the whole thing has fallen apart...
If you use your argument than your also have agree that literally every single god ever invented by man must exist. You have to agree that a monster that kills gods exist to. You'd have to agree that it is possible such a maximum great being does NOT exist, which gayer running it through means the bing can't possible exist. Can't have both true at the same time, but both are true under your argument.
This particular argument is an utter disaster...
-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Post #7
From the OP:
That's the great thing about "possible", it allows me to think I just might be me the smartest man the world has ever known. 'Til I get in an argument with the pretty thing. Then, well, I become the dumbest'n.
It's possible one don't.1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists
If it's possible one don't, then one don't.2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
If it don't exist in some possible world, then it don't exist in any of 'em.3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
If it don't exist in every possible world, it don't exist in this'n.4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world (our world).
If it don't exist in the actual world, it don't exist.5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Therefore, it don't.6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
That's the great thing about "possible", it allows me to think I just might be me the smartest man the world has ever known. 'Til I get in an argument with the pretty thing. Then, well, I become the dumbest'n.
Indictave of one who'd put hands over his own ears, if he had to borrow someone else's to do it, and then set to shoutin'....
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.
Or, one can just read it, and conlude "possible" doesn't mean and there he sits right there.You actually have to address the argument (1-5), and explain why any of the premises are false. But I don’t think that you can, can you?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
-
For_The_Kingdom
- Guru
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm
Post #8
Actually, you can'tPghPanther wrote: You can leverage the a word game and logical play to obtain any validation you want but it doesn't demonstrate that your claim exists within reality as best as we can know it without any evidence.
Actually, I didn't.PghPanther wrote: All you have done is play a game with words.
In a possible world. Could not a MGB exist in reality?PghPanther wrote: Point number #1 say is it possible......what in your imagination?......sure it can, but in reality?
The MGB, as defined in the argument, violates no laws of logic...a MGB is conceivable...we can imagine that such a being exist...so if we can imagine it, it is possible...and all possible necessary truths must be actually true.PghPanther wrote: .......well you have to validate that with evidence before you make that statement.
All point #1 states is that it is possible for a MGB to exist. Will you not admit that the existence of God (MGB) is possible? Again, most of you had no problem admitting that point prior to the argument. So I am going to go ahead and predict that now, suddenly, there will be many attempts to prove that it isn't possible for God to exist now.PghPanther wrote: I'll give you point #2 but you can't get there from point #1 as you have claimed.
LOL
Right, but you are comparing an alleged contingent existence (UFO) to an alleged necessary existence (MGB).PghPanther wrote: Point #3 is an assumption that you cannot make............just because a UFO exists in some possible world doesn't mean it exists in all possible worlds.
Apples and oranges.
#3 follows from #1. As long as you admit #1 is true, the rest just flows quite naturally doesn't it? Again, what reasons do you have that #1 is false?PghPanther wrote: Point #4 is another fail...............you can't get to all possible worlds in point #3 so how would you get to an actual world??
All what problems? LOLPghPanther wrote: No way you can get to Point #5 at all with all the problems listed above..........
Who is trying to be clever? Either the premises are true, or they are false. You haven't refuted anything to be so uptight.PghPanther wrote: Who thinks up all these childish word games and thinks they are clever anyway?
Is it possible for God to exist? Yes or no. Darn it, I should have asked this question before I made the thread, just so I can have you guys on the record.PghPanther wrote: Demonstrate your claims of a supreme being by the results of its actions in reality beginning with something like a demonstrated miracle..............just one......once....ever occurring the defies the laws of nature........
Now, I wait anxiously for this back peddling crap, "No, God's existence is not possible". LOL
-
Tired of the Nonsense
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 5680
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:01 pm
- Location: USA
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #9
[Replying to post 8 by For_The_Kingdom]
Is it possible for God to exist? Yes or no. Darn it, I should have asked this question before I made the thread, just so I can have you guys on the record.
Is it possible for God to exist? YES! In exactly the same way that it is possible for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to exist. NEITHER of these possibilities can be established to be physically valid and true, however.
Is it possible for God to exist? Yes or no. Darn it, I should have asked this question before I made the thread, just so I can have you guys on the record.
Is it possible for God to exist? YES! In exactly the same way that it is possible for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to exist. NEITHER of these possibilities can be established to be physically valid and true, however.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.-
JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Post #10
From Post 8:
How's that not holdin' your hands over your ears thing workin' out there, OP?
For_The_Kingdom wrote: Is it possible for God to exist? Yes or no. Darn it, I should have asked this question before I made the thread, just so I can have you guys on the record.
For_The_Kingdom wrote: Now, I wait anxiously for this back peddling crap, "No, God's existence is not possible". LOL
How's that not holdin' your hands over your ears thing workin' out there, OP?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
