Intro:
I've been wanting to do a thread on the modal ontological argument for quite some time, though I've been thinking about how I want to present it. I want everyone here to be able to properly understand it since most objections of the argument are due to a lack of understanding of it. some of the most annoying I think are when someone says "it seems like the terms are specifically defined for the argument." first, that shouldn't matter so long as the terms are clearly defined and used consistently. second, that's not at all how it is. the modal ontological was expressed using modal logic, it's simply a format Plantinga decided to use and it can be expressed in other logical formats. to prove this, I have reworded the modal ontological argument such that it is not modal in nature. by doing so, I think I have succeeded in making it easier to understand.

Purpose:
Just to be clear, the purpose of this argument is to prove the mere possibility that God exists implies his actual existence. with the success of this argument, the only burden I have to fulfill is to prove God is possible, then logic dictates he actually exists. God here is defined generically as an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect being. this definition may be consistent with any monotheistic or deistic theology. this argument does not prove Christianity is correct. it does prove atheism is incorrect.

Argument:
P1: the concept of God has no contradictions in itself.
P2: if the concept of God has no contradictions, it is conceivable.
C1: therefore God is conceivable.
P3: if God's existence were dependent upon an external factor, he wouldn't be omnipotent.
P4: the concept of God includes omnipotence.
C2: therefore God's existence is not dependent upon an external factor.
P5: if something's existence is not dependent upon an external factor, then it necessarily exists in and of itself (given it is conceivable).
C3: therefore God's existence is necessary in and of itself.
P6: something that necessarily exists must actually exist.
C4: therefore God exists.

the argument was constructed such that there should only be one controversial premise, the first premise. every other premise and conclusion logically follows from that one premise. thus, the only way atheism could be correct is if it is impossible for God to exist. the mere possibility of his existence implies his actual existence.

Objections:
1. you are merely defining God into existence-- no, I am using the typical generic definition of God (non religion specific) to show the contradiction of God being contingent. when this is ruled out, the only options left are his necessary existence or his impossible existence (which would have to be due to self contradiction).
2. this argument begs the question-- this argument would only beg the question if the first premise is the only premise in support of the conclusion. it usually takes the format of the conclusion itself being part of that premise, and other premises being rewordings of the first premise. an example of an ontological argument that would beg the question would be as follows: a. it is possible it is necessary that God exists. b. therefore it is necessary God exists. c. therefore God exists. such an argument would beg the question, but this is not what the modal ontological states. if you were to properly reduce the modal ontological argument, it would be as follows: a. it is possible God exists. b. if it is possible God exists, then God exists. c. therefore God exists. the argument first claims a then gives support for b using deductive reasoning. this is not question begging.
3. why is P3 true?-- because of God's existence were dependent upon an external factor, that would be a weakness for him. for example, if God were made of matter, then he wouldn't be omnipotent because we can break down matter therefore we could break down God. God must therefore transcend matter, not depend on it.
4. I don't get how you get C2-- C2 is derived from C1, P3, and P4. the fact that God is conceivable means it is not impossible for him to exist. P3 shows that it is impossible for God's existence to depend upon an external factor due to his omnipotence, yet P4 shows that omnipotence is part of the conception of God. this inevitably means C2 is correct.

(February 13, 2014 at 10:17 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: the argument was constructed such that there should only be one controversial premise, the first premise. every other premise and conclusion logically follows from that one premise. thus, the only way atheism could be correct is if it is impossible for God to exist. the mere possibility of his existence implies his actual existence.

Objections:
1. you are merely defining God into existence-- no, I am using the typical generic definition of God (non religion specific) to show the contradiction of God being contingent. when this is ruled out, the only options left are his necessary existence or his impossible existence (which would have to be due to self contradiction).

I am going to stick to the first objection. With this "proof" of yours, you can "prove" the existence of literally anything that is defined as omnipotent and is not self-contradictory. Also, just because a god is technically conceivable, how does this mean one can exist? Is it possible for anything to be omnipotent, and can one really conceive of true omnipotence (i.e. infinity)? Does this mean that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is also real? How about an omnipotent and godly pink unicorn or an infinite mystical space cheeseburger, or...

(February 13, 2014 at 10:17 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: P1: the concept of God has no contradictions in itself.

I assume you mean the traditional religions definition which includes omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. All three qualities can't exist and still evil exists. The ancient Greeks tackled this issue long ago:

1. Is God willing but not able to stop evil: then he isn't omnipotent
2. Is God able to stop evil but not willing: then he isn't omnibenevolent.
3. Is God both willing and able to stop evil: then whence commeth evil.
3. Is God unable and unwilling to stop evil: then why call him God?

Note the deist definition of God does not include omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent. But that's not what we're talking about, is it?

Quote:P4: the concept of God includes omnipotence.

Bare assertion.

Quote:C2: therefore God's existence is not dependent upon an external factor.

You can't use a bare assertion to prove another bare assertion.

Quote:P5: if something's existence is not dependent upon an external factor, then it necessarily exists in and of itself (given it is conceivable).

Not necessarily.

Is this fallacy-ridden babbling the best you can do?

(February 13, 2014 at 10:36 pm)Darkstar Wrote: I am going to stick to the first objection. With this "proof" of yours, you can "prove" the existence of literally anything that is defined as omnipotent and is not self-contradictory. Also, just because a god is technically conceivable, how does this mean one can exist? Is it possible for anything to be omnipotent, and can one really conceive of true omnipotence (i.e. infinity)? Does this mean that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is also real? How about an omnipotent and godly pink unicorn or an infinite mystical space cheeseburger, or...

oh, I forgot to cover the old parodies of the ontological argument in my objections. my bad. this doesn't work because it must not merely have the property of omnipotence, but it also must not have any contradicting properties. the flying spaghetti monster would fall under this contradiction:

(February 13, 2014 at 10:17 pm)I Wrote: 3. why is P3 true?-- because of God's existence were dependent upon an external factor, that would be a weakness for him. for example, if God were made of matter, then he wouldn't be omnipotent because we can break down matter therefore we could break down God. God must therefore transcend matter, not depend on it.

as you see, it is impossible for an omnipotent being to be made of matter, so the flying spaghetti monster and your 'godly pink unicorn' can't be omnipotent.

(February 13, 2014 at 10:38 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I assume you mean the traditional religions definition which includes omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. All three qualities can't exist and still evil exists. The ancient Greeks tackled this issue long ago:

1. Is God willing but not able to stop evil: then he isn't omnipotent
2. Is God able to stop evil but not willing: then he isn't omnibenevolent.
3. Is God both willing and able to stop evil: then whence commeth evil.
3. Is God unable and unwilling to stop evil: then why call him God?

Note the deist definition of God does not include omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent. But that's not what we're talking about, is it?

and I already answered that objection here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-21312.html

Quote:Bare assertion.

no, it is not a bare assertion to state the concept of God includes omnipotence. that's simply one of his defining properties. it's no more a bare assertion than it would be to define literally any word. you might as well call all of language a bare assertion.

Quote:You can't use a bare assertion to prove another bare assertion.

I didn't...

Quote:Not necessarily.

really? how else can something exist if not by an external factor? if all external factors are ruled out, only an internal necessity can remain. and no, it can't be an internal contingency. that is impossible because it breaks the law of identity. A is A, and A is necessarily A. God is God and God is necessarily God.

The concept of god is incoherent.

Edited to ask:

What is it?

Where is it?

How do you know?

(February 13, 2014 at 11:24 pm)whateverist Wrote: The concept of god is incoherent.

Edited to ask:

What is it?

Where is it?

How do you know?

I think it's funny how you claim God is incoherent yet you must ask about how he's defined. if you don't know this, how can you claim he's incoherent? how do you know?

(February 13, 2014 at 11:12 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: as you see, it is impossible for an omnipotent being to be made of matter, so the flying spaghetti monster and your 'godly pink unicorn' can't be omnipotent.

Oh, but it isn't physical spaghetti, it's magical non-physical spaghetti. And while that doesn't seem to make any sense, no one has proven that non-physical spaghetti cannot exist, so...

(February 13, 2014 at 11:12 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: and I already answered that objection here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-21312.html

I do remember. Perhaps you remember me from that thread. I found your "logical" arguments as unconvincing then as I do now.

Quote:no, it is not a bare assertion to state the concept of God includes omnipotence.

It isn't with me, as I already told you. "God" is at best a nebulously defined concept, different for each person who believes.

Quote:I didn't...

Yes, you did. It's as unconvincing as "Since Yahweh is the basis on which we judge morality, then everything he does is moral". Such contrived definitions used to prove their own assertions is inevitably circular. "We know that Yahweh is good because he is the basis on which we define what is good. And we know he is the basis on which we define what is good because he is good."

In the case of your argument, it boils down to "We define Yahweh as omnipotent. Therefore he must exist because otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent, would he?"

Now is this the best you can do?

(February 13, 2014 at 11:58 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Oh, but it isn't physical spaghetti, it's magical non-physical spaghetti. And while that doesn't seem to make any sense, no one has proven that non-physical spaghetti cannot exist, so...

now you're looking as ridiculous as this guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCUE10dY3Rc

(February 13, 2014 at 11:57 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

(February 13, 2014 at 11:24 pm)whateverist Wrote: The concept of god is incoherent.

Edited to ask:

What is it?

Where is it?

How do you know?

I think it's funny how you claim God is incoherent yet you must ask about how he's defined. if you don't know this, how can you claim he's incoherent? how do you know?

I've never heard a coherent description and certainly not a consistent one. So do you know what it is or not?