Modal ontological argument AGAINST God

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

Was having a conversation with an atheist, and he proposed the following argument against God:

P1: If God exists (the MGB, maximally great being), then GodWorld is the unique BPW.
P2: If GodWorld is the unique BPW, then God would maintain GodWorld.
P3: GodWorld is false because the universe exists.
C: Therefore, God, as so defined, doesn’t exist

Basically, GodWorld is a world in which only God, the MGB, exists. If He were to create any non-God object, then that would be degrading the overall quality of the possible world by filling it with something with lesser properties, and so would be contradictory to the great-making properties of the MGB, as degrading something is a lesser-making property, as we can conceive of a being who would not degrade the overall quality. Therefore, He cannot exist.

Some responses would be great!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Was having a conversation with an atheist, and he proposed the following argument against God:

P1: If God exists (the MGB, maximally great being), then GodWorld is the unique BPW.
P2: If GodWorld is the unique BPW, then God would maintain GodWorld.
P3: GodWorld is false because the universe exists.
C: Therefore, God, as so defined, doesn’t exist

Basically, GodWorld is a world in which only God, the MGB, exists. If He were to create any non-God object, then that would be degrading the possible world and would be contradictory to the great-making properties of the MGB, as degrading something is a lesser-making property, as we can conceive of a being who would not degrade the overall quality. Therefore, He cannot exist.

Some responses would be great!

BPW? How do you define this term?

Let me say this: God is pure spirit and does not occupy space. He existed before anything was created, and He does not need a “GodWorld” in which to exist. He created all things out of nothing, and He does not exist in the world of His own creation nor is His own perfection affected by that which he creates. So, if God created the universe, whether or not it may be perfect or imperfect has no bearing or impact on God whatsoever.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

BPW? How do you define this term?

Let me say this: God is pure spirit and does not occupy space. He existed before anything was created, and He does not need a “GodWorld” in which to exist. He created all things out of nothing, and He does not exist in the world of His own creation nor is His own perfection affected by that which he creates. So, if God created the universe, whether or not it may be perfect or imperfect has no bearing or impact on God whatsoever.

BPW = Best Possible World.

I’m speaking from modal logic. Worlds do not have to have space in them either, or time, for that either, from a modal standpoint. If God exists, then He exists in a world consisting only of Himself, from the modal standpoint. If something exists, it exists in a world.

 

[ccmnxc]

I’m not sure this argument falls under modal logic as I do not believe it uses any of the familiar axioms (S5 is common).
However, I would dispute premise 1:

P1: If God exists (the MGB, maximally great being), then GodWorld is the unique BPW.

Specifically, I deny that Godworld is the BPW. For example, the absence of non-God objects could be considered a massively detrimental imperfection, even though they themselves would lead to imperfections. This is especially true if the necessary desire of God is to create non-God objects (humans specifically). The creation of non-God objects would brign about a state of affairs that would potentially please God and remove any displeasure at the absence of non-God objects.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

I’m not sure this argument falls under modal logic as I do not believe it uses any of the familiar axioms (S5 is common).
However, I would dispute premise 1:
Specifically, I deny that Godworld is the BPW. For example, the absence of non-God objects could be considered a massively detrimental imperfection, even though they themselves would lead to imperfections. This is especially true if the necessary desire of God is to create non-God objects (humans specifically). The creation of non-God objects would brign about a state of affairs that would potentially please God and remove any displeasure at the absence of non-God objects.

God would not be the MGB if He had a necessary desire, because then you could just conceive of a being without that desire. Even if God had that desire in every possible world and had to gain pleasure necessarily, the fact you can conceive of a being without that desire/need would mean God was not the MGB. The MGB would have maximal pleasure etc., so there would be no need to seek it. If God needs to create something external in order to gain a great-making property, then He is especially not the MGB, as one could conceive of a God who did not need to create anything, and simply had the property.

Even if the MGB cannot possibly exist, it doesn’t change that God is not it. The Maximally Great Being is the best that can be conceived, not the best that we actually have.

 

[ccmnxc]

God would not be the MGB if He had a necessary desire, because then you could just conceive of a being without that desire. Even if God had that desire in every possible world and had to gain pleasure necessarily, the fact you can conceive of a being without that desire/need would mean God was not the MGB. The MGB would have maximal pleasure etc., so there would be no need to seek it.

Then it is disproving a god that nobody believes in anyways. As a disclaimer, I think any attempt at defining God by using terms like “great” or applying properties will ultimately fail. This is one of the reasons Aquinas rejected Anselm’s argument, and I concur w/ Aquinas on this. Just my take.

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

Then it is disproving a god that nobody believes in anyways. As a disclaimer, I think any attempt at defining God by using terms like “great” or applying properties will ultimately fail. This is one of the reasons Aquinas rejected Anselm’s argument, and I concur w/ Aquinas on this. Just my take.

Sorry, I edited my previous post quite a bit.

Alright, so would the answer just be that God is not a maximally great being, as defined in the ontological argument? I mean, to me that also seems like the only way out.

EDIT: And oh, nobody believes in it? Pretty sure at least 90% of theist philosophers agree that God is the MGB…

 

[ccmnxc]

Yes, I would agree that God is not a MGB as defined by the Ontological argument. This is why I think all ontological arguments fail. Especially when pertaining to this:

The Maximally Great Being is the best that can be conceived

I think apply what we can conceive to God puts God in a rather small box, and pretty much destroys any ability to actually be the greatest possible (though not conceptually) being.

EDIT: And oh, nobody believes in it? Pretty sure at least 90% of theist philosophers agree that God is the MGB.

My apologies. I was saying that a God who does not desire to create any non-god objects is a god nobody believes in. Indeed, it would be ridiculous to believe in such a God as our existence would being in tension with this gods desires (or lack thereof).

 

[Back2Church]

Sorry, I edited my previous post quite a bit.

Alright, so would the answer just be that God is not a maximally great being, as defined in the ontological argument? I mean, to me that also seems like the only way out.

EDIT: And oh, nobody believes in it? Pretty sure at least 90% of theist philosophers agree that God is the MGB…

How about the idea that the MGB is infinite, which is not something we can fully comprehend or understand? Therefore, trying to define the parameters of such a being’s existence is not possible, due the limitations of our intellect in relation to the subject matter.

 

[Elizium23]

BPW? GodWorld? You mean Heaven?

 

[Linux]

Was having a conversation with an atheist, and he proposed the following argument against God:

P1: If God exists (the MGB, maximally great being), then GodWorld is the unique BPW.
P2: If GodWorld is the unique BPW, then God would maintain GodWorld.
P3: GodWorld is false because the universe exists.
C: Therefore, God, as so defined, doesn’t exist

Basically, GodWorld is a world in which only God, the MGB, exists. If He were to create any non-God object, then that would be degrading the overall quality of the possible world by filling it with something with lesser properties, and so would be contradictory to the great-making properties of the MGB, as degrading something is a lesser-making property, as we can conceive of a being who would not degrade the overall quality. Therefore, He cannot exist.

Some responses would be great!

What does it mean to be a maximally great being? It seems to me that once you figure that out you will have the answer. There is at least one assertion in the argument that is based on a strawman of what it means to be maximally great.

 

[Beryllos]

Maybe humans are part of the BPW in a way that we cannot presently understand, not a flaw in Gods creation, but rather created according to God’s will by his perfect Word. We are fallen, we are sinful, but we are as God created us.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The word “best” does not simply mean “most lacking in flaws.”

 

[Sparkythedog]

Was having a conversation with an atheist, and he proposed the following argument against God:

P1: If God exists (the MGB, maximally great being), then GodWorld is the unique BPW.
P2: If GodWorld is the unique BPW, then God would maintain GodWorld.
P3: GodWorld is false because the universe exists.
C: Therefore, God, as so defined, doesn’t exist

Basically, GodWorld is a world in which only God, the MGB, exists. If He were to create any non-God object, then that would be degrading the overall quality of the possible world by filling it with something with lesser properties, and so would be contradictory to the great-making properties of the MGB, as degrading something is a lesser-making property, as we can conceive of a being who would not degrade the overall quality. Therefore, He cannot exist.

Some responses would be great!

I don’t know about proving non-existence, but maybe it would be simpler to say:

P1: God is the one perfect being.
P2: A perfect being cannot create something that is imperfect.
P3: The material world is imperfect.
C: Therefore God didn’t create the material world.

Statements like these are all meaningless anyway because no one ever defines perfection.

 

[ClearWater]

BPW? GodWorld? You mean Heaven?

Good one!

 

[SentinelofTruth]

I would dispute that GodWorld is the BPW. The more benevolent souls, the better, right? I mean, it’s not about the average goodness of all things in existence. A world with God, one good person, and a million evil people would be better than just God.

Sparkythedog:

Statements like these are all meaningless anyway because no one ever defines perfection.

If perfection was undefined then it would have no meaning and so the theist statement that “God is perfect” would be meaningless.

 

[Sparkythedog]

If perfection was undefined then it would have no meaning and so the theist statement that “God is perfect” would be meaningless.

That is what I’m saying. “God is perfect” is a meaningless statement.

For example:

If you say a circle is perfect, I know what you mean because I know that a perfect circle has all its points at an equal distance from its center.

If you say that you got a perfect test score, I know you mean that you got all the answers correct.

However:

If you say God is perfect, I don’t know what you mean. Does God have all its points at an equal distance from its center? Does it have all its answers correct? What makes a perfect God?

 

[Sultan_Of_Swing]

I would dispute that GodWorld is the BPW. The more benevolent souls, the better, right? I mean, it’s not about the average goodness of all things in existence. A world with God, one good person, and a million evil people would be better than just God.

The Maximally Great Being is maximally good. A world consisting of only Him would also have these maximally great things. Anything lesser that was added would only lessen the quality of the world, not make it better. As an analogy, a drop of impure water added to a bottle of pure water, would make the entire bottle impure. It is no longer 100% pure, just as the BPW would not longer be 100% maximally great.

 

[Linux]

The Maximally Great Being is maximally good. A world consisting of only Him would also have these maximally great things. Anything lesser that was added would only lessen the quality of the world, not make it better. As an analogy, a drop of impure water added to a bottle of pure water, would make the entire bottle impure. It is no longer 100% pure, just as the BPW would not longer be 100% maximally great.

God does not exist “in” a “world” by default. God by himself is the act of existence, since nothing is greater than that which is identical to the act of existence itself. That which is identical to existence has by definition the fullness of existence. God exists in all possible worlds by definition necessarily. What do you mean by good? How would it lessen the quality of the world if lesser things exist according to love? Perfect Love is an intrinsic aspect of a maximally great being. Thus it would be “maximally great” of God to share his existence with lesser beings.

Like I said somebody is building straw-men and calling it maximally great or God.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Linux:

God by himself is the act of existence

Nuh-uh. God is substantive being, “the act of existence” is a concept, an abstract.

Sparkythedog:

That is what I’m saying. “God is perfect” is a meaningless statement.

It’s not meaningless, it means that he has all desireable qualities.
Sultan of Swing:

The Maximally Great Being is maximally good. A world consisting of only Him would also have these maximally great things. Anything lesser that was added would only lessen the quality of the world, not make it better. As an analogy, a drop of impure water added to a bottle of pure water, would make the entire bottle impure. It is no longer 100% pure, just as the BPW would not longer be 100% maximally great.

That’s not a good analogy, because there it’s about the average rather than the total purity. But isn’t God and one good person better than just God?