One of the best arguments for God

[AquinasForGod]

One of the best arguments for God is the response to the modal ontological argument.

To read my full argument, go here - https://www.freelymeditate.com/single-p ... ts-for-god

And to read about ontological arguments and the modal ontological argument go to the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto ... n%20alone.

Question for Debate: Can atheists prove God is impossible?

The reason that is the question for debate is because that is the counter to Plantinga's ontological argument. If you read the link to the SFP, provided above, you will notice that his ontological argument is valid. This means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Thus to show the argument is not sound, you must show one of the premises are untrue. The only premise that you can really do that with is the first premise, which is that God is possible.

You could reject modal logic, I suppose, but that doesn't seem reasonable.

Also, the so-called defeater to this argument is why this argument is so good. It runs the argument in reverse, called a symmetry breaker. However, to run this argument in reverse is simply to state that God is impossible. Who argues that? Thus my question for debate. Can you argue that God is impossible?

If you wish to use the so-caleld symmetry breaker to the modal ontological argument to claim you defeated the argument, then you must defend the first premise, which is that God cannot exist in any possible world, yet that seems wrong. Why would God be impossible?

If you cannot defend the first premise, then you haven't defeated the argument. In other words, if you agree that God is possible, then Plantinga's argument goes through. It is sound and thus God is true.

In other words, you have to claim Plantinga's first premise is not true, which states that God is possible. If that premise is false, then you are saying God is impossible.

His argument is so powerful because it only leaves you with a few options.

1. God exists.
2. God is impossible, and cannot possibly exist. (Good luck trying to argue that. )
3. Reject modal logic.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]

We've somewhat beaten this topic to death in previous threads. Here is one for your perusal if interested:

Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38217&start=190

The main issue (regarding your point of possible versus impossible), is that we don't in fact know if a god is possible or not. We colloquially say "sure, it's possible", but that just really means "I don't know".

So, you would have to show that it's ACTUALLY possible for a god (however you want to define it) can exist or we have the same issue as with 'impossible'. It may not actually be physically possible for this god people are imagining to actually exist. Maybe it is. We don't actually know.

There is a built in 'bait and switch' going on with the word 'possible' in this argument. When we can't actually know whether to plug in 'possible' or 'impossible', then that premise is kind of dead. At the very least, whatever conclusion pops out the bottom of the argument MUST carry with it the same uncertainty as the premise. You can't go from "I don't know" to "God is real!".

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]

"Question for Debate: Can atheists prove God is impossible?"

Yes, but not to a believer that can't reason.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm sure this has been debunked before, though you appear to just give us a link and work out what the ontological argument actually is,rather than you setting up a particular glass house.

As I recall, the rebuttal was something along the lines of: We can imagine a perfect world, a perfect machine or a perfect human form, or at least have the concept in mind. That does not mean that any such thing has to exist, even if it was feasible.

The 'parameters' appear to be flawed from the outset, and I wonder that we have to do the same argument again, but you can (and should) set it all out if you think you are bringing something new to the table.

Gaunilo of Marmoutier was the first to respond to the ontological argument. Gaunilo argued that, following Anselm's absurd logic, it is impossible to imagine an island of unrivaled beauty without such an island existing in reality. Gaunilo's writing forced Anselm to admit that his argument depended on the ambiguity of its terms, and began a philosophical tradition of responding to the ontological argument which would be continued by Immanuel Kant and Gottlob Frege. (RationalWiki)

[The Tanager]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]

I've wanted to look at this more in depth recently. The problem I’m having involves the idea of necessary existence. Why is God’s existence necessary in this modal sense? Why can’t we imagine a unicorn that has necessary existence to where this necessary unicorn exists in a possible world?

[JoeyKnothead]

When one of the "best arguments" is "it's possible", I'll just start using that when the pretty thing asks if I picked up the yard like she told me.

It's possible I'm me the smartest one here among us. How many of y'all're willing to hang your hat on that hook?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]

"Question for Debate: Can atheists prove God is impossible?"

Yes, but not to a believer that can't reason.

I would like to hear you evidence that shows God cannot possibly exist.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #4]

You don't seem to be familiar with the arguments. You should read the link I provided, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Anselm's ontological argument is not the same as Plantinga's modal ontological argument. Modal logic did not exist in Anselm's day.

Plantinga's modal ontological argument is valid. That is not in question. The question is if it is sound. To argue against the soundness of it, you must show a premise is false, which hasn't been done yet. Running the argument in reverse doesn't show the first premise is false. It shows the argument can run in reverse, which it can. However, if there is no defense for the first premise, God is impossible, then the argument is not shown to be sound.

If we try to place a perfect Island or perfect human into Plantinga's argument, it doesn't work because these things are not necessary. We can imagine a possible world where a human is the best a human can possibly be, but we can also imagine a world where humans never exist, so a perfect human is not possible in all worlds, thus a perfect human is not necessary.

There is no world where a maximally great being is impossible, thus it is necessary because it possibly exist in every world. If this is wrong, please argue for the world where a maximally great being is not possible.

BTW, in modal logic a possible world means a consistent world in logic. And impossible world is a world that is not consistent in logic.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]

We've somewhat beaten this topic to death in previous threads. Here is one for your perusal if interested:

Revisiting the Modal Ontological Argument
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38217&start=190

The main issue (regarding your point of possible versus impossible), is that we don't in fact know if a god is possible or not. We colloquially say "sure, it's possible", but that just really means "I don't know".

So, you would have to show that it's ACTUALLY possible for a god (however you want to define it) can exist or we have the same issue as with 'impossible'. It may not actually be physically possible for this god people are imagining to actually exist. Maybe it is. We don't actually know.

There is a built in 'bait and switch' going on with the word 'possible' in this argument. When we can't actually know whether to plug in 'possible' or 'impossible', then that premise is kind of dead. At the very least, whatever conclusion pops out the bottom of the argument MUST carry with it the same uncertainty as the premise. You can't go from "I don't know" to "God is real!".

That is not what possible and impossible mean in modal logic.

A possible world is a complete and consistent way the world could have been. In other words, a possible world is a logical world.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]

I've wanted to look at this more in depth recently. The problem I’m having involves the idea of necessary existence. Why is God’s existence necessary in this modal sense? Why can’t we imagine a unicorn that has necessary existence to where this necessary unicorn exists in a possible world?

Consider first what possible and necessary means in modal logic, since Plantinga is using a modal argument.

Possible - complete and consistent to the world being described. All the propositions about the possible world need to be consistent.
Necessary - The propositions are true in every possible world, i.e. consistent in every possible world.

You can try to do it. Come up with propositions about a unicorn and see if they can be consistent in every world. Can we imagine a world in which this unicorn doesn't exist or could have existed never obtained? If so, then it is not necessary.

The propositions about God is that God is maximally great. God is all powerful, for example. This is consistent with a possible world. Is there any possible world where it is inconsistent for there to exist a being that is all powerful? It doesn't seem so. No one is arguing for such an impossibility. What would a an all powerful being be in conflict with?

Because God is consistent with every possible world, then God is possibly necessary.