Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 15, 2024, 1:51 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic
#24
RE: The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic
Quote: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.

Prove? I'm not sure any logical argument can do this. A unicorn is possible, as are centaurs, dragons, fairies, The Alien, E.T. and my friend Billy with a 10 foot willy.

Quote: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.

There are innumerable conundrums that God cannot solve so we will end up playing with the definition of the word omnipotent. Can God make a weight so heavy he cannot lift it? And so on.

Omniscient suffers from the same issue, only worse. Can God know both the location and the direction of travel of an election, for example?

Morally perfect. Either this is self referential or we are measuring God against an external measure. If its self referential then its meaningless. If its against an external measure then your definition of God is dependent on an external factor.

Quote: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.

As you recognise P1 is already problematic, but P2 is also problematic in that there are contradictions in the morally perfect being which is not dependent on an external factor (C2).
P5 is questionable. If something is not dependent on an external factor that it can exist but I do not see why it has to. Suppose we re-define God to be morally reprehensible - do any of the arguments collapse? I can't see any of P1-P6 that are undermined in any way by this change. Therefore a morally reprehensible God exits, given that it can exist in the same way.

A morally reprehensible God is the basis of maltheism. Can a morally reprehensible God exist at the same time as a morally perfect God?

Oh crap - spent an hour composing a post and almost every point you make has already been raised by the time you actually add it.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic - by max-greece - February 14, 2014 at 2:27 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Belief without Verification or Certainty vulcanlogician 40 3578 May 11, 2022 at 4:50 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  The evolution of logic ignoramus 3 944 October 7, 2019 at 7:34 am
Last Post: onlinebiker
  Ontological Disproof of God negatio 1042 90465 September 14, 2018 at 4:05 pm
Last Post: LadyForCamus
  My own moral + ontological argument. Mystic 37 11291 April 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm
Last Post: FatAndFaithless
  Let us go back to "cold" hard logic."Time" Mystic 75 11702 November 10, 2017 at 6:29 pm
Last Post: bennyboy
  Logic Fallacies: A Quiz to Test Your Knowledge, A Cheat Sheet to Refresh It Rhondazvous 0 1005 March 6, 2017 at 6:48 pm
Last Post: Rhondazvous
  Ontological Limericks chimp3 12 3348 December 22, 2016 at 3:22 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  On Anselm's 2nd Formulation of the Ontological Argument FallentoReason 7 3205 November 21, 2016 at 10:57 am
Last Post: FallentoReason
  On Logic and Alternate Universes FallentoReason 328 41870 November 17, 2016 at 11:19 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Formal logic for Dummies? LadyForCamus 48 8972 February 6, 2016 at 8:35 am
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)