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?

[rikuoamero]

After this post, I am done with this thread. I promise.

In case any new readers see this thread and skip all the way to the last page, here is the failure of the MOA, when the rigging is shown plain to see.

When typing this, I copied and pasted the argument FtK did in the OP. Then I copied the definition for MGB as laid out in the preamble put it where MGB was mentioned

On to the argument..

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (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). )

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

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

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

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

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. (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).

If FtK calls foul on this, I did nothing he didn't do. He provided his definition and the argument in the OP. I just copied the definition a few times and bolded where the rigged result comes from.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 501 by For_The_Kingdom]

Hey, Kingdom's back! I see he missed my post, but as I am such a nice guy, I will repost it here so he can see it

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 Flying Spaghetti Monster, at least as defined by Pastafarians, is a maximally great being (MGB). By maximally great, we mean that the Flying Spaghetti Monster 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).

Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

Amidoinitrite?

[Bust Nak]

They granted the possibility of a MGB...why would they need to retract from it if they are honestly granting the the possibility of a MGB existing?

Because they made an honest mistake, misunderstood what MGB entails.

Why? Because I made them aware of what granting P1 would mean, so they retracted from it. Plain and simple.

Right. What's so dishonest about that?

There are no amount of excuses that you can make for them which will change a thing.

Not my problem, I don't need to make excuse for them. It was your gloating I was commenting on.

The point was simple; a possibly necessary truth cannot be disproved.

Not much of a point. You were not asked to disproved a possibly necessary truth. Instead I asked you to prove the existence of God is a possibly necessary truth as claimed.

You gave a reason why P1 is false? Ohh, you mean that nonsense counter-syllogism that you offered which I proved to be false? Oh, that.

Besides that, what do you have? Because that was an epic failure on your part.

You talked as if you didn't know exactly what I was referring to by "my proof." So much for intellectual honesty.

Your problem is the inability to prove the argument false, so you resort to petty "prove you can think of X" reasoning, which is obviously a red herring to take away from the fact that you don't anything to offer in terms of refutation.

That's not a problem at all. All I have to do is point out your inability to prove the argument true. Like I said debate 101.

I clearly distinguished between both types of existence (contingent and necessary), and I did so thoroughly throughout the entire thread.

I can easily distinguished between regular circles and square circles too. That doesn't make the latter conceivable.

The idea of a being that has existed forever (necessary existence) is easily conceivable...and not only is it conceivable, but atheists believe and have been maintaining that the universe has existed necessarily (in various forms), but I doubt that you've ever challenged them to "prove that you can conceive of a universe that existed forever".

You are conflating between modal necessity and colloquial necessity. A creator god is no more necessary for a created universe than I am necessary for this post. An eternal universe might or might not exist, I have never challenged people to prove that they can conceive of a universe that existed forever, because I can conceive of a universe that existed forever, just as I can conceive of a generic god that existed forever.

You are the one that keeps maintaining "you can't define God into existence", as if the definition itself has some magical powers and can reflect reality so long as the right words are patterned correctly or something.

No idea how you came to that conclusion. The fact that definition has no magical powers and can change reality is exactly the reason why I keep telling you "you can't define God into existence."

God does not exist because he is "defined into existence"...he exists because it is POSSIBLE for him to exist, and all possible necessary truths must be true. P1 simply states that "it is possible for God to exist", which is either a true or false statement.

That doesn't work unless God's existence is a possible necessary truth.

The burden is on anyone that is making claims of knowledge...it works both ways. Opponents of the argument doesn't get to just throw claims and assertions around without having the same burden of proof as the person defending the argument...

but then again, if I say "P1 is true" and I am unable to prove it true, that doesn't mean that it is false by default.

No, but it does make the argument question begging.

It works both ways. Again, I don't know what makes you think that you can just assert things and not be expected to be asked to prove your claims.

The implication here is false. I don't think I can just assert things and not be expected to be asked to prove my claims. Ironically, it was not I, but you who asserted you can think of a necessary God's existence and acted all surprised when I asked you to prove it.

If that is what you think, then you have the game all messed up.

There you go. You have the game all messed up thinking you can just assert you can think of a necessary God.

No it isn't. No one ever said "because you can't prove it false, therefore, it is true".

The record will show otherwise, in post#480 you said, "this whole notion of 'its not up to us to disprove it, you have to prove it' is false."

I am saying "because you can't prove it false, I have no reason to believe that it is false and I will continue in my belief in the truth value of P1, since I have reasons to believe that P1 is true".

That's moot since you believing P1 is not enough to support P1.

Actually, what I am doing is simple; asking you to back up your claims just like I am expected to back up mines. Again, you don't get to just throw unsupported claims around and act like just because it isn't a positive claim that it doesn't require proof.

That might have been what you meant, but that's not what you said. Let me remind you, that it was you who challenged me to disprove P1 when I asked you to prove it.

I don't need to know P1 is false to challenge the truth value of P1

No...

Well there you go. This whole notion of "its not up to us to disprove it, you have to prove it" is actually true in spite of your earlier denial.

Actually, it isn't. Every debate that I've watched, when someone disagrees with a premise, they give reasons why.

That's debate 101 too, that doesn't mean the burden of proof can be ignored.

I must have missed your proof.

So you kept saying, that's why I kept repeating it for you.

I defined God as "necessary"...and of course you don't like that definition because you know that once you grant the possibility of it, you've granted the existence of God.

Right, as if I need any other reason to reject that definition.

I don't follow.

You implied that some atheist adjusted their position up on understanding what P1 says and that makes them intellectually dishonest, when it's perfectly normal to adjust based on changing circumstances, especially when the concept of god have been swapped form one to another.

"It is possible for a MGB to exist"...seems pretty simple to me.

What does that have to do with the fact that the majority of us were familiar the MOA and/or modal logic long before you made this thread? I will remind you once again that you postulated that we wouldn't have otherwise denied the possibility of God if you hadn't personally brought the MOA to our attention.

And you've given me no reasons as to why the being can't exist, based on how it is defined.

The record will show otherwise. In short, such a being cannot possibility exist because it contradicts a possible world where no conscious being exists.

Ok, so prove that you can conceive of a MGB which doesn't exist, then?

Oh I can do much better than that, I can prove that you can conceive of a MGB which doesn't exist. You did that when you said the concept of a MGB could be absurd and P1 could be false, while insisting that is not actually absurd or false.

Ok, and if it CAN be thought of, that would mean it is a logical concept, right?

Yes, that much is trivial.

Any concept that is logically coherent is possibly true. A MGB is a logically coherent concept.

Is it? prove it.

Obvious based on what? You claiming it is?

No, based on you conflating an eternal god with a necessary one. An eternal god in one world doesn't automatically imply an eternal god in every possible world.

Then tell me explicitly that you cannot prove that you can conceive of the nonexistence of a necessary being.

But I can, with my deductive proof.

It isn't my problem, either.

It is if you want to prove you can conceive of a necessary god.

Yeah, and the contradiction lies within YOUR counter-argument...which in no way reflects the MOA.

It doesn't matter which argument the contradiction lies within, the mere existence of a contradiction reflects on the MGB, and what reflects on the MGB, reflects on the MOA.

It is false, and I explained why...

Your explanation is question begging - you just assumed a world where no sentient being exist is impossible by appealing to the definition you provided. Which is once again, an attempt at defining God into existence.

and I don't see anything from you explaining why it is true.

An MGB contradicts the existence of a world void of beings, that is the sum of the explanation. It is that simple.

Not the God as defined in the argument.

Again with the appeal to a definition. One can define something anyway that he wants, whether or not the definition reflects reality...that is the question...

I am glad that you admit it was technical...and not only was it technical, but it was pretty much my own words, besides the syllogism. Everything else was my own words...which was a detailed explanation on the terminology and everything that makes the argument, the argument.

So, thanks for the compliment...it wasn't needed, but it is appreciated.

You are welcome.

No, there was no understanding of YOUR argument and the way that you presented it. There is understanding in MY argument and the way that I presented it.

You say that and yet there you are, still maintain P3 followed from P1, while getting P3 wrong at the same time.

No sentient beings besides the MGB? No problem. I justed imagined a possible world where the MGB didn't create humans. Easy. But the MGB is still there, isn't he?

No, I was referring to the time you imagined a possible world where no sentient beings exist at all.

You've yet to give any reasons why it applies to God, though.

Because it is an universal fact: You cannot defined any being into existence, ANY BEING, which obviously include God.

No, it is an attempt to demonstrate why the existence of God is possible.

So demonstrate away, ideally without just asserting that you can imagine it; and not just an eternal god, but a necessary one; and not just necessary for this universe, but necessary full stop.

I understand that as an atheist, you are having a difficult time coming to gripes with the fact that God's existence is possible.

A generic god is very possible.

But that is your problem, not mines.

It is when you offer it as an argument for God.

The definition isn't going anywhere. It is what it is.

And that's the problem. The entire argument hinges on that one definition. Which is why I kept telling you: "You can't define God into existence."

Your "I'd rather not have God defined as necessary" approach is a problem that you are going to have to deal with. It is a personal problem.

You know, that sounded very much like an confession that you do indeed understand that the whole thing depends on that definition.

Ask yourself this, why would any atheist want to deal with an approach that begin with having God defined as necessary? How would you deal with an argument that define God as non-existent from the get go?

The fact of the matter is, the concept of such a being is logically sound.

Is it? Prove it.

and based on our exchanges, you've offered nothing in way of good refutation that can change otherwise.

Lets just say I am as confident about my refutation, as you appears to be with the MOA.

Nonsense. If "a maximally great being exists in some possible world (P3) ", then "it is possible for a maximally great being to exist (P1) " .

And vice versa, if "it is possible for a maximally great being to exist (P1) ", then it is a maximally great being exists in some possible world (P3) ".

What on Earth are you talking about? That's not what P3 says at all. It says and I quote: "If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. (P3)"

So much for showing understanding in your argument. You can't even keep your premise straight.

Your point is granted.

You grant my point yet do not acknowledge that P1 can be false while the others are true?

Yeah, I was told that it isn't possible, but I wasn't told WHY it isn't possible. Not by you.

I did better, I gave you a deductive proof.

Regardless of what it depends on, the premises is true. No matter how we take it.

We can take it on its own..

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

Or we can take it with two preceding premises...

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.

Now matter how you take it, P3 is true...in fact, no matter how you take it, ALL premises of the argument are true.

Incorrect, the premise 1 could be false if God is not a necessary being, or non-existent at all. Premise 3 could be false if God is not a necessary being.

And yours don't?

I sure hope they do. I have very high opinion of my own posts in case it wasn't immediately obvious.

"If you didn't define God that way, the MOA wouldn't be valid" LOL.

"Hey Arnold Schwarzengegger, if you didn't go to the gym every day to build up your muscle mass and endurance, you would have never won all of those Mr. Olympia titles".

I will take that as you conceding that the validity of the MOA hinges on your definition. Guess what, you can't define God into existence.

If you can't give me a possible world where 2+2= not 4...then you are giving me red herrings.

No, it is you who is giving people red herrings. I have never suggested nor implied that there is some possible where 2+2 is not 4. In fact I have out right called "possible necessity is actuality" an axiom.

Now, that being said; this is my final post to you regarding the MOA. You can have the last word.

I will finish up by quoting my original post: I don't see why you would need to mess around with "possible worlds," not with the definition of God you provided here:

1) God cannot fail to exist.
2) Therefore God exists.

Wow that was easy to prove! The argument amounts to taking your audience round the park to hide the question begging nature of the premise. You cannot define something into existence.

[Danmark]

You gave a reason why P1 is false? Ohh, you mean that nonsense counter-syllogism that you offered which I proved to be false? Oh, that.

Besides that, what do you have? Because that was an epic failure on your part.

You've proved nothing, not one thing during this "epic failure" of a thread.
I correct myself. You've proved you can gloat over nothing; congratulate yourself for nothing, and waste your time and ours with an unoriginal argument that is 1000 years old.

[wiploc]

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.

If you can imagine the nonexistence of a necessary being, then the being was never necessary in the first place.

Bingo!

[Danmark]

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.

[emphasis applied]
Joey, that may be the best short summary of this thread, "if we can imagine stuff, that makes that stuff real."

The OP ridiculously equates "possible" with "necessary," two words that have nearly opposite meanings:
"For_the_Kingdom"

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�.

[Kenisaw]

Request please of readers - can those atheists who granted P1 in this thread chime in on why they retracted it? Is it as I suspect - that you didn't pay attention to the full OP and didn't realise that the MGB had been defined as 'not failing to exist' in the preface BEFORE the argument to prove its existence?

Riku - Once I realized how the MGB was defined, with multiple Omni characteristics which contradict one another, it became obvious that the MGB could not possibly exist. Kingdom had literally defined his MGB is such a way that made it impossibly illogical. He ruined his own initial premise.

I also took issue with him going from "possible" to "necessary" within his own argument. The parameters were changed mid stream, with the MGB no longer being just "possible" and suddenly becoming "necessary". That is another valid objection raised by several people throughout the course of the discussion, because his defined MGB in P1 has changed later on in the argument.

Lastly, there was another point I made to him that got lost in the shuffle, which is simply this - Even if a god exists, that doesn't mean it created anything. A god creature of some sort could very easily exist and not been involved in anything at all. Theists never seem to realize this point. They assume that the existence of their god creature automatically means that this creature engaged in creating, but a god creature's existence doesn't prove this.

Thanks for asking for clarifications, I think that was an excellent idea.

[rikuoamero]

So...this topic has died down, and I notice that we STILL don't have For_the_Kingdom's Kalam thread.
I'm actually interested in it. He kept building up hype for it. So...where is it?

[For_The_Kingdom]

So...this topic has died down, and I notice that we STILL don't have For_the_Kingdom's Kalam thread.
I'm actually interested in it. He kept building up hype for it. So...where is it?

Ironing out some last minute details..it is a-coming.

[rikuoamero]

So...this topic has died down, and I notice that we STILL don't have For_the_Kingdom's Kalam thread.
I'm actually interested in it. He kept building up hype for it. So...where is it?

Ironing out some last minute details..it is a-coming.

Sorry man. I was waiting so long with baited breath that I ended up suffocating. Who knows though, I might end up resurrecting and reading the thread.