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 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?

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

I can think of a being that is greater than "Beyonder", therefore, "Beyonder" isn't a MGB.

Only a fool would assume #1 was possible. That would be an Entity that could do anything, anywhere, anytime.

I can imagine a being that "could do anything, anywhere, anytime". I call such a being "God".

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.

How is the characteristics of God impossible?

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.

All allegation, no substance. We can systematically deny or reject anything. But can we state reasons why we are denying/rejecting? Some can't. Most can't.

So unless there is a reasonable need for an APE, there is no basis to assume it exists. Hope is not a valid reason.

There is a reasonable need. The answer to the question of "what could have created space, time, energy, and matter"...the answer to that question could not have existed within space, time, energy, and material realm, could it?

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.

You are appealing to a law (first law of thermodynamics) that came into play only after the universe began to exist.

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.

Ok, so before the universe began to exist, where was the "potential" energy located to create it?

Since energy has mass, it would have to have significant mass everywhere.

Not to mention space

By E=mc2, we don't find any unexplained mass, therefor, no APE.

What good would E=mc2 do, before the existence of a finite universe?

So, logically we do not require an APE.

We require a First Cause.

Scientifically we do not require an APE.

Science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain

Religiously, it is only required to explain why inconsistencies in religious claims do not match reality.

My religion told me that the universe began to exist while in the meantime scientists were telling me that the universe is eternal.

Come to find out, aha!! The universe began to exist, just as my religion told me. Hmmm.

V/R

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

My head almost exploded (in a good way) trying to follow this. So before I go any further, thank you for all the effort you put into your definitions and argument. You definitely made me put my thinking cap on

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists

Yes, I agree with this. In so much that I think just about anything is possible until proven otherwise.

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

This is where you really lost me. To me, possible means there is also the chance that it is impossible. That is why we use the word possible and not fact or truth. Mathematically, the chance is between 0 and 100 percent with 0 being valid. So I don't get the leap to 'then a maximally great being exists'. Haven't you just assumed 100% somewhere? I'm sure a real mathematician will straighten me (and/or you) out.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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.

Um, didn't I acknowledge that? The world that WE live in is a possible world, isn't it?

Okay, fair enough. Emphasis on the word possible.

Are you granting the premise?

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.

So basically, "it is possible for a necessary being to exist, however, since it is unprovable, such a being may not exist".

The problem with that is; if such a being "may not exist", then it was never "possbily necessary" for such a being to exist in the first place.

I addressed this in the latter part of the thread.

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.

#3 can't apply to Popeye, because Popeye is a CONTINGENT being. The MGB as identified in the argument is a NECESSARY being.

If you don't know the difference between the two terms and can't make the distinction as needed, you will continue to make refutations that simply don't apply to what is being argued.

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.

You've taken the misplaced refuation that you made two quotes above, and applied the same rational to the above quote...which makes both refutations equally misplaced.

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.

Actually it isn't. First off, again, you are incorrect. It is true, that everything that can be imagined is possibly true, but what is untrue is the notion that everything that can be imagined is possibly necessarily true.

Again, that is the distinction that needs to be made. When you staple the word "necessary" to any proposition, that changes the whole idea of what you are talking about.

Notice in the argument, put a face or a name to the MGB. All the argument attempts to prove is that there exists a being with those maximally-great making properties.

Ok, fine..you say the being is Popeye...fine, if you want to name the being "Popeye", more power to you. See, the name or face that you give it is IRRELEVANT to the argument.

The argument only makes the case for a being. Now, who that being is, its name, face...all of those things are completely irrelevant, which is why the argument remains unfazed by any of the "Popeye, Pink Unicorn, Fairy, Santa Claus, Flying Spagetti Monster" or any other wild stuff unbelievers like to throw out there.

The entire exercise above is an example of watching someone chasing their tail and getting exactly nowhere.

Dude, your entire post was one big straw man attack. Keep up the good work.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to post 7 by JoeyKnothead]

Y'all remember now, OP says not to cover your ears and shout.

But, 'parently, coverin' your eyes and hushein' up is fine.

The lawlz


(Speling edit and the following added...)

I think we can gain some insight into how confident one is in their arguments, when they imply or fuss about folk "covering their ears", when they just can't seem to address posts that expose their faulty thinking, such that accusations of "covering ones eyes" may indeed hold merit. I remind folks that none are obligated to respond. I merely point out folks fretting on ears covered when it might be, they got their eyes so covered they can't see their own hands in front of 'em.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 11 by For_The_Kingdom]

Oh this is going to be fun...

I can think of a being that is greater than "Beyonder", therefore, "Beyonder" isn't a MGB.

No you can't, that was the premise of the Beyonder, he was beyond anything you can imagine. In fact, you have just admitted this concept is beyond what you can think of, because this APE was able to tuck himself into another Universe and not be in any others.

Based on this, you can't even conceive of something like the Beyonder, so thinking of something greater, by you has just been shown false. This means your logic is suspect at that point.

I can imagine a being that "could do anything, anywhere, anytime". I call such a being "God".

Again, your knowledge of physics is now suspect. As you ignored the necessary physical constraints of such a creature. So, again you have put constraints on your ability to authoritatively argue for an APE.

How is the characteristics of God impossible?

All powerful for one. All-powerful means infinite energy, infinite energy means infinite mass. In order to do anything, this APE would also have to have structure, like a muscle, lever or even a magnetic field.
However, name any character you think it should have. But more importantly, before we run down that fools-errand, tell me the rationale for requiring such properties.
I think you'll find that the only reason your need APE characteristics is to explain something religious, that can't even be observed.

You called this...

All allegation, no substance. We can systematically deny or reject anything. But can we state reasons why we are denying/rejecting? Some can't. Most can't.

But you need to tell what an APE explains or does that it needs to exist at all. So, what does an APE do that the same system without an APE does not? If there isn't anything, then it is unsound to assume an APE.

There is a reasonable need. The answer to the question of "what could have created space, time, energy, and matter"...the answer to that question could not have existed within space, time, energy, and material realm, could it?

This is a good answer for anyone born BEFORE Isaac Newton. Or before understanding that matter and energy are conserved. Matter is neither created nor destroyed... Energy is neither created nor destroyed... only transformed.

Imagine we reverse time we see and observed what happened...
Heavier atoms become lighter ones in Suns.
Lighter elements become hydrogen (protons, neutrons and electrons-(pnes)).
If we track the Big Bang, that hydrogen compresses towards the center of the Universe getting denser until they form a huge Neutron Star. That "Star" becomes denser until it compresses to form Bosons in a massive Black Hole.

There is no need for creation. Especially if you imagine there is left over hydrogen, watching that entire process. Dark Matter is a sizable portion of the Universe, so this is not unreasonable.

Bottom line, no creator is needed. Matter is transformed, with no need for creation.

You are appealing to a law (first law of thermodynamics) that came into play only after the universe began to exist.

This statement is just wrong. You do not have a sufficient understanding of thermodynamics, again limiting your ability to take part in the conversation. Being nice, I'll ask, why you would make such a broad claim? What is your rationale for making such, what would be considered by most, a bad assumption?

Ok, so before the universe began to exist, where was the "potential" energy located to create it?

So again, energy is neither created nor destroyed. So, what YOU are obviously speaking about is your definition, or WORDS describing the universe. Those are only words. The energy was there in a form YOU have not defined.

Not to mention space(sic)

Though you seem to be being wry, it is an important point. Bosons are massive yet occupy no space. Difficult for most to imagine, but to make it simple... if you shine two flashlights at each other, the photons pass right though, even occupying the same space without interacting. Just imagine they are bosons, having mass, instead of photons, and that should about do it.

What good would E=mc2 do, before the existence of a finite universe?

I don't know what you mean, are you alleging again that physics stops working? Again, a very bold statement, one you can't make lightly. Provide a rationale, or withdraw it.

We require a First Cause.

No, there is no need for a first cause: Matter is neither created nor destroyed, it does not need a cause. Protons, neutrons and electrons are
OBSERVABLY AND DEMONSTRABLY IMMORTAL.
No conjecture or logic required.

So it is logical to compare immortal PNEs to conjectural APEs.
APEs loose.

Science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain.

No, that is logic. But I can see your confusion.

My religion told me that the universe began to exist while in the meantime scientists were telling me that the universe is eternal.

Come to find out, aha!! The universe began to exist, just as my religion told me. Hmmm.

The Universe, again is your definition. Matter always has and always will exist. It just looks different then you have previously imagined. (See point 1).

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

I have no interest in fiction and fantasy; however, I do have some appreciation for creative mental gymnastics often used to defend or promote religious beliefs.

The above "argument" went off the rails at #2 -- attempting to go from "possible" to "being exists". The train fell off a Trestle at #3 with a wild, unsupported assumption presented as though it was established fact.

Number one is accepted only because nearly anything is "possible" hypothetically (particularly regards religion and science fiction). All after that is mere conjecture / opinion / fantasy.

[Furrowed Brow]

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

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.

But if we rewrite the first premise in light of this new understanding...

• 1. It is possible that a being exists for which something that is possible in some world is never impossible for this being

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

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

Again, most of you admit that it is possible for God to exist.

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. 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. 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.

[Inigo Montoya]

.

My turn! My turn!

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists

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

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

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

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

This argument is toast already, but I want to play on to the showcase. It in no way logically follows that Possibility X turning out to exist in location A therefore simultaneously means Possibility X exists everywhere. More to the point, if it DID exist everywhere, it is no longer a maximally great being, but beingSsss. Plural.

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

If we grant the first three silly notions, this one actually does logically follow. It's not saying much, though. If everyone has herpes, it follows that I, too, have herpes.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

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.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

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.

The real problem (the above was just fun) is riiiiiight here....

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).

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

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.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by For_The_Kingdom]

Hi, For_The_Kingdom

Interesting argument you have there... or should I say.. HALF of one.
Read on to understand why I say it's just a half.

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?

It's no good to think of atheists as SO BIASED as to just say that all theists arguments aren't valid WITHOUT giving good reasons why. US people might not be as ridiculously irrational as you make us out to be.

It's just a bad way to start off a conversation .. this "YOU PEOPLE" thing is completely unnecessary.

---

I think that the argument fails to consider BOTH sides to possibilities, when it comes to the existence of maximally great beings. Because although it's possible that a maximally great being DOES exist, it's ALSO possible that one doesn't. And so, we need to make an argument that explores both possibilities, not just the one.

---

So, here is the other possibility, that a maximally great being DOESN'T exist, in the missing part two of what I think the argument should have:


1. It is possible that a maximally great being doesn't exist

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being doesn't exist, then a maximally great being doesn't exist in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being doesn't exist in some possible world, then it doesn't exist in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being doesn't exist in every possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world (our world).

5. If a maximally great being doesn't exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being doesn't exist.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being doesn't exist.

---


Now we have the TWO sides of the argument, one that concluded that a maximally great being exists, and one that concludes that a maximally great being doesn't exist.

It's complete.
What have we learned?

By changing what we are considering is possible, we can have completely opposing conclusions.

It's possible that a maximally great being exists, and it's also just as possible that none does.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists

Okay, fair enough. Emphasis on the word possible.

Are you granting the premise?

I am granting that none of us possesses the superpower which would be required to know things to the exclusion of all alternate possibility.

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.

So basically, "it is possible for a necessary being to exist, however, since it is unprovable, such a being may not exist".

The problem with that is; if such a being "may not exist", then it was never "possbily necessary" for such a being to exist in the first place.

Such a maximally great being MIGHT exist in some possible world. You are attempting to make the leap from "might exist" to "must exist." For which no evidence has been given.

So basically, "it is possible for a necessary being to exist, however, since it is unprovable, such a being may not exist".

Yes... with qualifications. It is possible that a necessary being exists. With no evidence to support the existence of such a being however, there is no reason to suppose that such a being DOES exist. We are still sitting at zero. In other words, tail chasing.

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.

#3 can't apply to Popeye, because Popeye is a CONTINGENT being. The MGB as identified in the argument is a NECESSARY being.

If you don't know the difference between the two terms and can't make the distinction as needed, you will continue to make refutations that simply don't apply to what is being argued.

Within the line of possibility that you have established, it is perfectly possible that Popeye created the universe, making Popeye a necessary being. According to your line of reasoning. Nothing you have provided has established a link from "might" be true, to "must" be true however.

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.

You've taken the misplaced refuation that you made two quotes above, and applied the same rational to the above quote...which makes both refutations equally misplaced.

And you have simply developed a concept from a beginning point of no physical evidence, and then declared your resulting entreaty it to be the ONLY possible conclusion. That may serve to convince you, but it is unlikely to work on the rest of us.

Actually it isn't. First off, again, you are incorrect. It is true, that everything that can be imagined is possibly true, but what is untrue is the notion that everything that can be imagined is possibly necessarily true.

Let's have a close look at what you said.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
It is true, that everything that can be imagined is possibly true, but what is untrue is the notion that everything that can be imagined is possibly necessarily true.

YES! It us untrue to suppose that everything which can be imagined to be true IS true. There is NO reason to suppose, and EVERY reason to doubt, that all the things that can be imagined to BE true ARE true! And so it's SETTLED.

Again, that is the distinction that needs to be made. When you staple the word "necessary" to any proposition, that changes the whole idea of what you are talking about.

Now you seem to be debating yourself. Your continuous use of the word "necessarily" is right there in your OP for all to see.

Notice in the argument, put a face or a name to the MGB. All the argument attempts to prove is that there exists a being with those maximally-great making properties.

You have a clear and obvious problem with conceptualizing the difference between that which has been physically proven, and that which has been constructed out of a series of unsupported assumptions and assertions, and then declared to be proven. This doesn't even constitute a theory constructed of straw. Straw at least has physical properties.

Ok, fine..you say the being is Popeye...fine, if you want to name the being "Popeye", more power to you. See, the name or face that you give it is IRRELEVANT to the argument.

The major difference being that I don't have any physical evidence which would support the claim that any such being exists, now or ever, which would require a name or face to be applied to. We have been indulging ourselves in idle speculation which has led to no tangible conclusion. In other words, chasing our tails.

The argument only makes the case for a being. Now, who that being is, its name, face...all of those things are completely irrelevant, which is why the argument remains unfazed by any of the "Popeye, Pink Unicorn, Fairy, Santa Claus, Flying Spagetti Monster" or any other wild stuff unbelievers like to throw out there.

And all of these "beings" have one thing in common. They cannot be established to exist physically, or exist in any way outside of the human imagination. The exact quality they share with your maximally great being.

The entire exercise above is an example of watching someone chasing their tail and getting exactly nowhere.

Dude, your entire post was one big straw man attack. Keep up the good work.

For straw man examples I can only suggest that one need look no farther than the OP of this string.