The Modal Ontological Argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicSoxFan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by empther View Post
Let’s be grateful it’s Superbowl Sunday!
Click to expand...
Yes, I suppose the Superbowl is more up to your level.
Click to expand...

“It’s hard to be a slave in the South, harder to be a slave in the North, but hardest of all to be a slave of yourself.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden Pond
 
belorg said:
W1 of my argument.

“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).”
Click to expand...
In order for something to be necessary, it would have to be outside of spacetime, because of the evidence for the beginning of the universe, phiosophical and scientific. Remember, natural theology arguments reinforce each other; so Anselm was in a sense wrong in his original conception of one knock-down argument for God’s existence, but there are multiple arguments that refute objections to each other.
 
CatholicSoxFan said:
In order for something to be necessary, it would have to be outside of spacetime, because of the evidence for the beginning of the universe, phiosophical and scientific. Remember, natural theology arguments reinforce each other; so Anselm was in a sense wrong in his original conception of one knock-down argument for God’s existence, but there are multiple arguments that refute objections to each other.
Click to expand...
And how is this a necessary truth that says W1 is impossible.

Remember, I have never claimed that the particle in W1 is a physical particle, nor that it belongs to our universe, nor that it exists in spacetime.

So, you’ll have to do better than this.
 
empther said:
“It’s hard to be a slave in the South, harder to be a slave in the North, but hardest of all to be a slave of yourself.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden Pond
Click to expand...
Yes, I suppose that’s hard, empther, but I keep hoping that you will be free one day.
 
belorg said:
And how is this a necessary truth that says W1 is impossible.

Remember, I have never claimed that the particle in W1 is a physical particle, nor that it belongs to our universe, nor that it exists in spacetime.

So, you’ll have to do better than this.
Click to expand...
This is basically the same point I’ve been trying to drive home. If CatholicSoxFan’s argument is sound, then your argument has to be sound – but of course, they both can’t be sound, because they have contradictory conclusions. The problem is with generalized assertions about “this” or “that” being possible.

In point of fact, we don’t know what is possible; we only know what we can imagine.

If God exists, then it is false that a one-object universe is possible – even though we can imagine it.

If God does not exist, then it is not possible that God exists – and the modal ontological argument is no good.

It’s an impasse. That’s where metaphysics usually puts us. 🤷
 
An MGB has an argument, the MPA, to defend His possibility, while a necessary particle doesn’t. Again, I was originally wrong about the burden of proof when it comes to metaphysical possibility.
 
CatholicSoxFan said:
An MGB has an argument, the MPA, to defend His possibility, while a necessary particle doesn’t. Again, I was originally wrong about the burden of proof when it comes to metaphysical possibility.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about a necessary particle.
 
belorg said:
I am not talking about a necessary particle.
Click to expand...
Well then, there’s no problem. “If possibly possibly p, then necessarily p” isn’t the S5 axiom, “If possibly necessarily p, then necessarily p” is.
 
And also, if we are right, the necessary truth that prevents only a particle from existing is the existence of God, so that objection doesn’t really get you anywhere.
 
Originally Posted by empther
“It’s hard to be a slave in the South, harder to be a slave in the North, but hardest of all to be a slave of yourself.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden Pond
Click to expand...
Yes, I suppose that’s hard, empther, but I keep hoping that you will be free one day.
Click to expand...

I am pleased that belorg put his remark next to mine,
so that people can easily compare them. 😃
 
CatholicSoxFan said:
And also, if we are right, the necessary truth that prevents only a particle from existing is the existence of God, so that objection doesn’t really get you anywhere.
Click to expand...
So, the only thing you can do to counter my argument is begging the question. I think this says it all.
Thanks for the discussion.
 
belorg said:
So, the only thing you can do to counter my argument is begging the question. I think this says it all.
Thanks for the discussion.
Click to expand...
You are also begging the question by saying it IS possible. That’s why the argument doesn’t get us anywhere.
 
belorg said:
So, the only thing you can do to counter my argument is begging the question. I think this says it all.
Thanks for the discussion.
Click to expand...
That’s a really funny diagnosis. You put forward a first premise that blatantly (though indirectly) assumes that God does not exist, and then you accuse your *opponent *of begging the question. :rolleyes:
 
That’s a really funny diagnosis. You put forward a first premise that blatantly (though indirectly) assumes that God does not exist, and then you accuse your opponent of begging the question.
Click to expand...
Do you remember that kid in your high school class who was neither a good athlete or student, but did all kinds of antics in the classroom to call attention to himself?
 
Prodigal_Son said:
That’s a really funny diagnosis. You put forward a first premise that blatantly (though indirectly) assumes that God does not exist, and then you accuse your *opponent *of begging the question. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The point is that my argument does not beg the question. Premise 1 does not soleley rely on the conclusion (God is impossible) being true.
My request to CatholicSoxFan was to tell me which necssary truth premise 1 of my argument violates. The only answer he has been able to give so far is that it violates the necessary truth of God’s existence, which is exactly what we are trying to establish. So, in saying that W1 is impossible because God is necssary, CatholicSoxFan begs the question.
 
CatholicSoxFan said:
You are also begging the question by saying it IS possible. That’s why the argument doesn’t get us anywhere.
Click to expand...
Actually I am not begging the question here. Premise 1 does not even mention God and is not based on the presuppsoition that God is impossible, but is just an observation based on the fact that W1 does not seem to violate any necessary truth, other than the existence of God, which has not been established as a necssary truth.
So, you beg the question and I don’t.

Of course, I cannot prove that W1 is a possible world, so as an argument against God, my argument would be rather weak.
But I am not trying to disprove God, I am just trying to counter your argument. And as long as you cannot provide a necessary truth other than your own conclusion, I have successfully done so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top