Modal ontological argument: open for discussion and defense

Author: Soluminsanis

Posts

Total: 86
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
@Theweakeredge
Any chair which was maximally great would not need to rely on matter or space to exist.
I think we start getting into some really squirrelly territory here. So first and foremost as I alluded to before, the idea of maximal chair greatness is not really a well defined concept. What one person finds great in a chair could be completely opposite to what another person finds great in a chair. 


Secondly,  what you're positing now are immaterial chairs.  I would argue that's not a very coherent concept. 


I mean,  what is a chair? A chair by definition has legs and a back,  as well as a place to sit.  I don't see how we can keep those definitions in tact while upholding said chair is immaterial. Does this chair have immaterial legs? A back not extended in space? Is it made of non physical wood? 

Also,  perhaps most damagingly to the idea of a maximally great chair,  is that, the very telos of a chair is to sit a being with a physical structure similar to that of a human. In the plethora of possible worlds where humans do not exist to give the chair its telos, what can the chair be called at that point?

In other words, what makes the very concept of "chairness" intelligble in the first place, is quite frankly,  human tushies. Without a person to sit the essence of a chair becomes unintelligible 

When you posit a necessarily existing chair you're in effect saying we have an eternal chair. 

In order for a chair to be eternally intelligible it would need an eternal agent who needed and was capable of sitting from eternity past.


I would argue the atheist is trying to avoid such a being. 
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Is a person who lives a long life necessarily "greater" than someone who lives a short life?
Well no,  but in this analogy,  you're comparing two contigent beings who share in the same mode of existence.


Imagine two comic book characters... contigent man and Doctor Necessary.  Contigent man could easily be killed,  he has the potential for non existence.  But doctor necessary cannot be destroyed.  He never came into being and will never go out of being. 

I think which is greater in this case is self evident
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,073
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Soluminsanis
Imagination is a fantastic thing.

In my imaginary comic book, I imagine that Dr Necessary can easily be destroyed, and that Contingent Man is indestructible..... And Madame Lingerie is a Goddess who can reduce super heroes to drooling numpties.

I think which is the greater in this case is self evident.

Though I'm not sure if one can apply self evidence to imaginary scenarios. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sum1hugme
I am aware of that. But a noumenon necessarily has physical characteristics, which can be observed as phenomenon. 
NOUMENON AND PHENOMENON ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CONCEPTS.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Soluminsanis
Imagine two comic book characters... contigent man and Doctor Necessary.  Contigent man could easily be killed,  he has the potential for non existence.  But doctor necessary cannot be destroyed.  He never came into being and will never go out of being. 

I think which is greater in this case is self evident
What if "Doctor Necessary" didn't actually "choose" to "exist"?

What if "Doctor Necessary" is forced to exist and only does what is essential to its nature (what is necessary)?

What if "Doctor Necessary" has no choice?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Soluminsanis
I think we start getting into some really squirrelly territory here. So first and foremost as I alluded to before, the idea of maximal being greatness is not really a well defined concept. What one person finds great in a being could be completely opposite to what another person finds great in a being

Secondly,  what you're positing now are immaterial beings.  I would argue that's not a very coherent concept. 

I mean,  what is a being? A being by definition has legs and a back,  as well as a place to sit.  I don't see how we can keep those definitions in tact while upholding said being is immaterial. Does this being have immaterial legs? A back not extended in space? Is it made of non physical flesh? 

Also,  perhaps most damagingly to the idea of a maximally great being,  is that, the very telos of a being is to appear superior to a human. In the plethora of possible worlds where humans do not exist to give the being its telos, what can the being be called at that point?

In other words, what makes the very concept of "beingness" intelligible in the first place, is quite frankly,  human tushies. Without a person to stand in awe before it, the essence of a being becomes unintelligible 

When you posit a necessarily existing being you're in effect saying we have an eternal being

In order for a being to be eternally intelligible it would need an eternal human who needed it and was capable of standing in awe from eternity past.

I would argue the atheist is trying to avoid such a being
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Soluminsanis
literally every one of your rebuttal is our point. That is the same as a maximally great being, it was an reductio ad absurdum, Your argument is synonymous to ours. That was the entire point.
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5
@Tradesecret




SOLUMINSANIS,

I am sorry that you had to block me from addressing your posts, it comes with the territory of you not knowing the scriptures like you thought you did.

 In any event, you have addressed the pseudo-christian faction within your thread, but you have yet to address me as being the ONLY TRUE CHRISTIAN within this forum by you not taking into account that you are not even a pseudo-christian because of my post to you below:



I have to ask you, did you go to the Tradesecret/Ethang5 school of how to runaway from biblical axioms and to try in vain to remain intelligent looking in the aftermath?  Yes?  Remember, this is a Religion Discussion Forum, NOT a runaway from Religion Discussion Forum, understood?

Jesus and I will await a cogent and timely response to the above link, thanking you in advance.


In the name of the hung Savior,

Brother D. Thomas



.



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@BrotherDThomas
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,984
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Soluminsanis

Plantinga famously concedes that a rational person need not accept this argument, and claims only that a rational person could accept it. The reason is that while he thinks a rational person could accept its first and key premise, another rational person could doubt it. One reason it might be doubted, Plantinga tells us, is that a rational person could believe that there is a possible world in which the property of “no-maximality” – that is, the property of being such that there is no maximally great being – is exemplified. And if this is possible, then the first and key premise of Plantinga’s argument is false. In short, Plantinga allows that while a reasonable person could accept his ontological argument, another reasonable person could accept instead the following rival argument:

1. No-maximality is possibly exemplified.

2. If no-maximality is possibly exemplified, then maximal greatness is impossible.

3. So maximal greatness is impossible.

So Plantinga himself, tells us how his argument can fail.
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
@Theweakeredge
So far just felt it necessary to say I appreciate the continued dialog and the well thought out responses from everybody.  I don't think the reductio ad absurdum has reduced the MOA to absurdity because, as I was trying to point out in my original reply, there's a stark contrast between positing a contigent, material object and an mgb. 

Going in reverse because the last point I found most troublesome:

In order for a being to be eternally intelligible it would need an eternal human who needed it and was capable of standing in awe from eternity past.
Bro do you even divine aseity???

In all seriousness,  this is QUITE a leap. This wouldn't even apply to humans. Would you fail to exist,  or have your existence rendered unintelligible if you were the only being on the planet and nobody else existed to admire you? That just doesn't make sense.  God's existence is not contigent on or sustained by our adoration. Really nobody's existence is.

However my point was a chair's intelligibility is in fact dependent on something to seat. 



In other words, what makes the very concept of "beingness" intelligible in the first place, is quite frankly,  human tushies. Without a person to stand in awe before it, the essence of a being becomes unintelligible 

My point originally stated was that the idea of chairness is unintelligible without the corresponding concept of "sitting". And sitting is unintelligible without a being to sit. 


To simply assert a being cannot be intelligible without corresponding adoration is hands down the wackiest atheist objection I've ever heard, and can only be responded to with three words:

"Whaddo you meme??"


the very telos of a being is to appear superior to a human.
But no, it isn't.  The telos of a chair is to seat things. The telos of being is to be.

I mean,  what is a being? A being by definition has legs and a back,  as well as a place to sit.  I don't see how we can keep those definitions in tact while upholding said being is immaterial. Does this being have immaterial legs? A back not extended in space? Is it made of non physical flesh? 
In this case I'm not arguing for a non physical human, that wouldn't make any sense. 

I'm arguing for a non physical conscious entity. The statement "a being by definition has a back and legs" not only assumes the only beings that exist are bipeds with a torso (sorry caterpillars)  but is simply not what I'm arguing 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Soluminsanis
I'm arguing for a non physical conscious entity. The statement "a being by definition has a back and legs" not only assumes the only beings that exist are bipeds with a torso (sorry caterpillars)  but is simply not what I'm arguing 
You will find the atheists here terrified of any argument that may establish God as a logical necessity. As such, they will stubbornly pretend to see or respond to only arguments for God's existence. Anything you say will be interpreted by them as "God exists" and they will respond to that, and not what you actually argue.

I've never been able to figure if they really don't get it, or if they only pretend because the implication terrifies them so much. Good thread and good topic. 
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
-->
@ethang5
Thank you for the encouragement.  In all honesty the thread is getting a tad tiresome.  I think Flrw had the best objection and I will respond to him lastly, after my response to him I might call it a day on this thread.  We had a good discussion,  I hope they thought so too. 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Soluminsanis
I think Flrw had the best objection and I will respond to him lastly..
FLRW can be trusted to always tow the party line.

...I hope they thought so too. 
I'm sure they did. 
Soluminsanis
Soluminsanis's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 73
0
1
5
Soluminsanis's avatar
Soluminsanis
0
1
5
-->
@FLRW
So far you've offered I believe the best treatment of the argument. Would you mind giving me a reference to Plantinga's statements? I would like to read more of those for myself. 

In regards to the reverse ontological argument:

1. No-maximality is possibly exemplified.

2. If no-maximality is possibly exemplified, then maximal greatness is impossible.

3. So maximal greatness is impossible.

So Plantinga himself, tells us how his argument can fail.
In regards to premise 1


 If there were a possible world where no maximal greatness was exemplified that could only be because maximal greatness is impossible. If it was possible it would be exemplified in every world.

The challenge then is how do you show maximal greatness to be impossible?


I don't believe you can.  There's nothing in maximal greatness that would be logically or metaphysically incoherent or contradictory,  like square circularity. If maximal greatness is not incoherent, maximal greatness IS possibly exemplified.  



So when we get back to the reverse argument,  premise one actually contains its conclusion:

"No maximality is possibly exemplified " (i.e. maximal greatness  is impossible)


In other words,  I don't think the argument goes through because premise 1 contains its conclusion,  and maximal greatness would have to be shown to be metaphysically incoherent in order to establish premise 1. Not just assumed. 

So I think the only successful version of the reverse ontological argument would be:



1. Maximal greatness is logically impossible 

2. If maximal greatness is logically impossible it is not exemplified in any possible world. 

3. Maximal greatness is not exemplified in any possible world


4. An mgb cannot exist. 


This avoids the circularity issue.  The issue is I don't believe premise 1 can ever be established 



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Soluminsanis
In all seriousness,  this is QUITE a leap. This wouldn't even apply to humans. Would you fail to exist,  or have your existence rendered unintelligible if you were the only being on the planet and nobody else existed to admire you? That just doesn't make sense.  God's existence is not contigent on or sustained by our adoration. Really nobody's existence is.
Look.

(IFF) you wanted "aseity" to be part of your definition of "MGB" (THEN) you should have included it in your argument

I'm just pointing out that NO-"THING" (and or "chair" and or "being") can be (properly described as) "maximally" "great" if there is no-"thing" to compare it to.

What is it "greater" than?

If "MGB" is the only thing that has ever "existed" then it is not "greater" than any-"thing" else.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Soluminsanis
My point originally stated was that the idea of beingness is unintelligible without the corresponding concept of "sitting". And sitting is unintelligible without a being to sit. 

We all know that beings can sit.

And a "maximally great being" should (would) be able to sit better than any sitter that ever sat in the long and illustrious history of sitting.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Soluminsanis
But no, it isn't.  The telos of a chair is to seat things. The telos of being is to be.
Ok, so a "maximally great being" doesn't necessarily DO anything?

This actually solves an entire raft of potential "problems".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Soluminsanis
I'm arguing for a non physical conscious entity. The statement "a being by definition has a back and legs" not only assumes the only beings that exist are bipeds with a torso (sorry caterpillars)  but is simply not what I'm arguing 
Thank you for clearing that up.

(1) What do you mean by "non physical"?

(2) What do you mean by "conscious"?

(3) What do you mean by "entity"?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Soluminsanis
There's nothing in maximal greatness that would be logically or metaphysically incoherent or contradictory,
The term itself "maximal greatness" and the corresponding term "being" are extremely poorly defined in the context provided.

Would the NOUMENON fulfil the logical requirements for your non-contingent, self-sustaining, eternal, "MGB" perhaps?
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I think the entire concept of "maximally" is pretty logically incoherent into itself. As you pointed out its very vague in what specifically it implies and means specifically.
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 137
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
-->
@Soluminsanis
Let us define a maximally excellent being (MEB) as follows : It is a being that has the following properties :

<list of your favourite great-making properties>

Let us define a maximally great being (MGB) as follows : It is an MEB that is necessary.

What does it mean for a being to be necessary ?

Soluminsanis  9 to drafterman
A contingent being is one whose explanation for its existence is found in an outside or prior entity. You and I are contigent beings,   our explanation for existence is found in a prior being or state of affairs.

A necessary being however, is a being whose existence is not explained by a prior or outside reality, but one whose existence is explained in its own nature. It exists because it is existence. Not because it was actualized by a prior cause.
What is that 'an explanation for existence' ?
Can you give some examples of necessary things and their explanation ?

At first sight I can't really think of anything necessary. Even numbers only exist when they are exemplified.

Soluminsanis 40 to FLRW
I think you're employing an unnecessary amount of agnosticism in regards to each premise.

If we're talking about metaphysical possibility as opposed to epistemic possibility, then all that would be required for any concept to go through is it being logical coherent. Probability doesn't necessarily play a role.
Is a necessary lion logically coherent ?
I suspect not because a lion is contingent. Something can't be both continent and necessary.

Is it even possible for a being to be necessary ?

Assuming yes, a problem with assigning great-making properties to a being could be that these make the being contingent. The argument in principle applies to any necessary being, including those with loathsome properties. However, since the actual number of necessary beings appears to be low, somehow most set of properties make such beings impossible. So, how can we establish which properties work and which don't ?

Soluminsanis 42 to 3RU7AL
So let's think about possible worlds and the idea of a maximally great chair.   
In order for an mgc to exist in all possible worlds,   several things would need to be true. 
The chair itself would have to exemplify maximal greatness. 
The chair would have to exist across all possible worlds. 
This simply isn't possible though. 

We can imagine several possible worlds where the space time continuum either doesn't exist or is dramatically different.   If there exists a possible world where no space exists,   then we cannot have a mgc in that world because there is no space for the matter of the chair to be extended into.
You are disputing the conclusion of the argument, from which you deduce the argument must be invalid. That is precisely the point.
The only difference between the original and this parody is the first premise. It is clear that a necessary chair is impossible because we know what a chair is. Since we don't know what an MGB is supposed to be, it is harder to come up reasons why it cannot exist.

Hence the reasoning is : We don't know what we are talking about. Therefore, we can't find any reason why it would be impossible. Therefore, it must be possible.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Amoranemix
The argument in principle applies to any necessary being, including those with loathsome properties. However, since the actual number of necessary beings appears to be low, somehow most set of properties make such beings impossible.
Well stated.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Amoranemix
The only difference between the original and this parody is the first premise. It is clear that a necessary chair is impossible because we know what a chair is. Since we don't know what an MGB is supposed to be, it is harder to come up reasons why it cannot exist.

Hence the reasoning is : We don't know what we are talking about. Therefore, we can't find any reason why it would be impossible. Therefore, it must be possible.
Well stated.
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7



.


SOLUMINSANIS,

YOUR QUOTE IN GIVING UP IN TRYING TO DEFEND YOUR TOPIC:  "Thank you for the encouragement.  In all honesty the thread is getting a tad tiresome.  I think Flrw had the best objection and I will respond to him lastly, after my response to him I might call it a day on this thread.  We had a good discussion,  I hope they thought so too."

Before you throw in the towel, and if you are going to remain upon this prestigious Religion Forum, and since you stated that Yahweh is your God that you follow, then at least tell us in what Jewish sect you adhere to, okay?  This is the least that you can do, understand? 

It is also duly noted that you have gone to Tradesecret and ethang5's pseudo-christian school of "How to run away from disturbing biblical axioms, and to try in vain to remain intelligent looking in the aftermath."  For this, I am truly sorry for you, because you will continue to be the Bible fool in this forum like Tradesecret and ethang5 have been easily shown.

To help you further in your religious development as a Jew for Yahweh as explicitly shown in my link below, I suggest that you reread my post to you in proving that you are a Jew, and another post by the astute 3RU7AL shown below to save you from further embarrassment upon this forum. You can thank me later.





.





 
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7





SOLUMINSANIS,

Since you are new here at this forum, is it your contention to be a RUNAWAY from your Bible ignorance, which does not bode well for you in the future if you remain upon this prestigious forum, understood?

True Christians like me, of which I am the only one upon this forum,  will not allow you to just run away from being made the Bible fool for obvious reasons of your salvation, therefore you have yet to address my post shown below within your own thread:


Jesus is watching you (Hebrews 4:13) in how you either run away again, or defend the JUDEO-Christian Bible like He wants you to do (2 Timothy 2:15).


In the name of the hung Savior,

Brother D. Thomas



.