The Modal Ontological Argument

[polytropos]

The MPA is a demonstrative argument; it basically argues that one proposition (maximal greatness is possible) is equivalent to true proposition (great-making properties do not entail lesser-making properties). In other words, it is a deductive argument. Take for example the Kalam Argument. Premise 2 of it says that the universe began to exist. But given the fact that everything that begins to exist has a cause, doesn’t that mean that it’s equivalent to the conclusion, that the universe has a cause? You see, if you use that kind of argumentation to try to prove that an argument is circular, deductive arguments begin to collapse.

I’m not saying that it’s not a deductive argument, and I’m not saying it’s invalid. I am saying that the propositions about great-making properties that you have given us make it epistemically circular. I can claim that any property is possible by claiming that it’s a great-making property, because great-making properties are defined as not entailing their negations. But that is where the circularity comes in: if I claimed that p is possible because p is F and Fs don’t entail ~F, then I am transferring the possibility claim to the claim that p is F. I am just saying that p is of a kind which is definitionally possible. As such, the claim that p is F assumes that p is possible, which is what we want to show.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I’m not saying that it’s not a deductive argument, and I’m not saying it’s invalid. I am saying that the propositions about great-making properties that you have given us make it epistemically circular. I can claim that any property is possible by claiming that it’s a great-making property, because great-making properties are defined as not entailing their negations. But that is where the circularity comes in: if I claimed that p is possible because p is F and Fs don’t entail ~F, then I am transferring the possibility claim to the claim that p is F. I am just saying that p is of a kind which is definitionally possible. As such, the claim that p is F assumes that p is possible, which is what we want to show.

So in that case, you are denying P3 (or saying it’s dubious), rather than charging circularity. But isn’t it absurd to say that maximal greatness isn’t great? I guess you could say that the standard attributes of God aren’t actually great-making, but that would also be problematic; I mean, I guess you could say that ignorance is greater than knowledge, but then why are you arguing with me over anything? You can’t really call any of the standard attributes of God lesser-making by any definition of “better” and “worse” that anybody uses.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It’s up to the atheist to provide proof that God is incoherent, not mine (sorry, Matt Dillahunty, you actually have to prove something.) But, actually, the MPA meets the burden of proof that the atheist has.

We’re not talking about incoherence. We’re talking about violating a necessary truth. There are coherent things that are metaphysically impossible.

Your argument claims that “It is (metaphysically) possible that God exists.” That statement is logically equivalent to the statement that “There are no necessary truths that contradict God’s existence.” So how can you claim that the first statement is true, despite the fact that you cannot defend the second statement?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

CatholicSoxFan,

Thanks for being a good sparring partner, by the way. You’re keeping me on my toes!

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

We’re not talking about incoherence. We’re talking about violating a necessary truth. There are coherent things that are metaphysically impossible.

Your argument claims that “It is (metaphysically) possible that God exists.” That statement is logically equivalent to the statement that "There are no necessary truths that contradict God’s existence. So how can you claim that the first statement is true, despite the fact that you cannot defend the second statement?

The same responce works for necessary truths; it is up to the atheist to prove that God’s existence violates a necessary truth. And again, the MPA disproves it anyway.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

CatholicSoxFan,

Thanks for being a good sparring partner, by the way. You’re keeping me on my toes!

No kidding. I’m also in a dialogue with an atheist on Google Plus on God’s existence (although there’s another theist there), so I’m quite shorthanded right now (2 on 4.)
EDIT: 15 posts in 53 minutes! My goodness!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The same responce works for necessary truths; it is up to the atheist to prove that God’s existence violates a necessary truth. And again, the MPA disproves it anyway.

The burden of proof lies on whoever is trying to prove something. At the moment, you’re the one trying to prove something.

No one’s trying to prove atheism. But some of us think that there aren’t any sure-fire proofs of God’s existence, and we’re fine with that.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

The burden of proof lies on whoever is trying to prove something. At the moment, you’re the one trying to prove something.

No one’s trying to prove atheism. But some of us think that there aren’t any sure-fire proofs of God’s existence, and we’re fine with that.

Again, the MPA provides the proof. But if an atheist is going to (and they have to, in order to deny the conclusion of the argument) that God’s existence contradicts a necessary truth, I think they have to back it up, and not just say they don’t have to because they’re an atheist.

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by Prodigal_Son
CatholicSoxFan,

Thanks for being a good sparring partner, by the way. You’re keeping me on my toes!

No kidding. I’m also in a dialogue with an atheist on Google Plus on God’s existence (although there’s another theist there), so I’m quite shorthanded right now (2 on 4.)
EDIT: 15 posts in 53 minutes! My goodness!

If you really want some fun, CatholicSoxFan,
join an atheist forum like I did last year. :bigyikes:

It’s an experience, brother, but you need a skin as thick as a rhinoceros. :whacky: These people are really sick.

I can’t give a link to an atheist forum, but the one I joined is as bad as they get.
HINT: The “statistics” line at the bottom of the screen reads

Total posts 82870 | Total topics 3151 | Total members 1908

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

If you really want some fun, CatholicSoxFan,
join an atheist forum like I did last year. :bigyikes:

It’s an experience, brother, but you need a skin as thick as a rhinoceros. :whacky: These people are really sick.

I can’t give a link to an atheist forum, but the one I joined is as bad as they get.
HINT: The “statistics” line at the bottom of the screen reads

I don’t know if I’m prepared for that yet, but once I am, I wouldn’t want to be an atheist on that forum, because I have quite the time on my hands!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Again, the MPA provides the proof. But if an atheist is going to (and they have to, in order to deny the conclusion of the argument) that God’s existence contradicts a necessary truth, I think they have to back it up, and not just say they don’t have to because they’re an atheist.

Suppose I were to argue the following:

(1) It is possible that the world has always existed.
(2) If the world has always existed, then the world had no beginning.
(3) Therefore, it is possible that the world had no beginning.

The first premise seems plausible enough, as stated. But it is equivalent to “It is not necessary that the world has not always existed.” If I do not have reason to believe this latter proposition, then I don’t have reason to believe premise #1. And I don’t have reason to believe this latter proposition. Thus, premise #1 is nixed.

Essentially the same thing is going on in your argument. Once I call the premise that asserts the possibility of God’s existence into question, you are put in a really tough position.

As for the MPA, the conclusion of that argument is that “Maximal greatness is possible.” I’m not sure I buy the argument, but … Can you explain to me why “maximal greatness” equals God? For example, why would a maximally great entity have to be sentient?

 

[empther]

I was asked in a PM if I’d give the name of that atheist forum.

Sorry. I can’t do that. I don’t want to be responsible for anybody’s soul.

If you really want to have a nauseating experience,
you’ll have to work for it. :bigyikes: :banghead:

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Suppose I were to argue the following:

(1) It is possible that the world has always existed.
(2) If the world has always existed, then the world had no beginning.
(3) Therefore, it is possible that the world had no beginning.

The first premise seems plausible enough, as stated. But it is equivalent to “It is not necessary that the world has not always existed.” If I do not have reason to believe this latter proposition, then I don’t have reason to believe premise #1. And I don’t have reason to believe this latter proposition. Thus, premise #1 is nixed.

Essentially the same thing is going on in your argument. Once I call the premise that asserts the possibility of God’s existence into question, you are put in a really tough position.

As for the MPA, the conclusion of that argument is that “Maximal greatness is possible.” I’m not sure I buy the argument, but … Can you explain to me why “maximal greatness” equals God? For example, why would a maximally great entity have to be sentient?

• In this case, the opposition of this argument (if it was valid) would have the burden of proof as to claiming that it is necessary that the universe had a beginning. And in this case, there are numerous philosophical arguments against its past eternality.
• In order for an entity to love, the entity would have to be sentient. You can basically deduce classical theism from maximal greatness, when you start thinking about great-making properties. Much like the implications of the Kalam argument’s conclusion, it might seem like a leap, but it really isn’t, when you start examining it.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I was asked in a PM if I’d give the name of that atheist forum.

Sorry. I can’t do that. I don’t want to be responsible for anybody’s soul.

If you really want to have a nauseating experience,
you’ll have to work for it. :bigyikes: :banghead:

If I start making YT videos, then I think that’ll count as an atheist forum. I mean, if you look at the like bars of some of their videos, it’s reverse proportional to the level of argumentation on the video.

 

[belorg]

Again, the MPA provides the proof. But if an atheist is going to (and they have to, in order to deny the conclusion of the argument) that God’s existence contradicts a necessary truth, I think they have to back it up, and not just say they don’t have to because they’re an atheist.

1 There is a possible world (W1)in which there is only one simple, eternal particle, (and maybe some abstract objects, depending on your view of their ontological status).
2 God (a maximally great being who is omniscient etc…) does not exist in W1. (from 1)

3 Therefore God is impossible.

Now, if the theist is going to (and they have to, in order to deny the conclusion that God is impossible) claim that the existence of W1 contradicts a necessary truth, I think they have to back it up, and not just say they don’t have to because they’re a theist.

 

[empther]

1 There is a possible world (W1)in which there is only one simple, eternal particle:bigyikes: , (and maybe some abstract objects , depending on your view of their ontological status ).
2 God (a maximally great being who is omniscient etc…) does not exist in W1. (from 1)

3 Therefore God is impossible.

Let’s be grateful it’s Superbowl Sunday!

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

1 There is a possible world (W1)in which there is only one simple, eternal particle, (and maybe some abstract objects, depending on your view of their ontological status).
2 God (a maximally great being who is omniscient etc…) does not exist in W1. (from 1)

3 Therefore God is impossible.

Now, if the theist is going to (and they have to, in order to deny the conclusion that God is impossible) claim that the existence of W1 contradicts a necessary truth, I think they have to back it up, and not just say they don’t have to because they’re a theist.

Yeah, I should have listened to IP (the YouTuber who introduced me to this) on this one; it is actually on the “possible” person. But I’m glad I know this mistake against theists, because I think I have an idea about the nature of atheist replies if this were an atheist forum…

 

[belorg]

Let’s be grateful it’s Superbowl Sunday!

Yes, I suppose the Superbowl is more up to your level.

 

[belorg]

Yeah, I should have listened to IP (the YouTuber who introduced me to this) on this one; it is actually on the “possible” person. But I’m glad I know this mistake against theists, because I think I have an idea about the nature of atheist replies if this were an atheist forum…

And what exactly is the necessary truth that says W1 is impossible?

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

And what exactly is the necessary truth that says W1 is impossible?

Huh? W1 of what?