The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic

[Darkstar]

lets see... first you're making an assumption that the mind is produced by the brain, i would argue it is the other way around

The brain is produced by the mind?

second, you're making an argument from ignorance fallacy in an attempt to support your assumption. just because no one has ever seen a mind function independent of the brain doesn't mean that can't be the case, there are many things that we haven't seen before that turn out to be true. lack of evidence has nothing to do with the truth of the statement.

So you admit to a lack of evidence? Sure, it technically doesn't prove that a mind needs a brain, but how could this even theoretically be done (assuming it is true)? At the very least, lack of evidence for independent sentiencies should not lead to the conclusion that they are likely to exist. I recall you saying that something is metaphysically possible so long as it is not internally contradictory. How about physically? Would blatantly breaking the laws of physics still be possible (under the assumption that it weren't some obscure exception to the rule we didn't know about)?

In what sense? Colors, sounds, etc. are the result of energy (either directly or indirectly) and while they certainly exist, this does not lead to them being sentient.

i never suggested they were sentient, i simply stated they exist and can't be broken down to matter. as such, the mind can't be broken down to matter either. even Sam Harris agrees with this.

Energy is not matter, agreed. Thoughts and abstract concepts are not matter, agreed. However, you argued that a non-physical god would be unimpeded by anything else, which is not what we see here. Light, for example, can be bent or stopped altogether, sound waves bounce off of physical objects, and things can be insulated against heat. So, while they are themselves not composed of matter, they are by not means unopposable.

Again, you're making baseless assumptions. from what we can observe, there is a clear connection between mind and brain. we can also clearly observe that the functional capabilities of the brain can determine how well the mind can interact with the brain. but none of that clearly shows that the mind is dependent upon the brain. there is nothing you have said that shows a necessity of a brain dependent mind. even if you indeed showed that our minds are brain dependent, that doesn't mean it's impossible to have one that isn't.

Is dualism falsifiable? If not, then there is no point in discussing it.

i don't think you realize that by admitting necessary truths can exist, you have also admitted the possibility that something's existence can be necessary in and of itself.

Laws of nature and laws of logic, only.

if something can be true because it is necessary for it to be true, then it can be true that something exists simply because it is necessarily true that it exists.

I don't think that the truths are necessary, per se, rather, they are axiomatic. For all I we know, the universe could have had very different laws of physics for whatever reason.

So it follows that literally everything that is possible is also true?

no, it follows that anything that is metaphysically possible but not metaphysically contingent is metaphysically necessary and anything that is metaphysically necessarily is also true.

So, if I define the wonderful cosmic cheeseburger as "a non-physical entity that projects the illusion of a cheeseburger into people's minds, whose existence is not contingent on anything, but is otherwise limited in power", does it now exist? In fact, would said cheeseburger not be more likely to exist, because it is not infinite? After all, infinity is a mathematical concept that cannot be applied to the real world, even theoretically. Surely true omnipotence would require infinite power, which would be impossible, which would make god impossible.

It is metaphysically possible for their to be no god, then? I can certainly imagine a universe without one.

when you analyze the coherence of the statement in conjunction to the validity of the MOA, you can see that it is not. if it were possible for there to be no God, then this would mean it is impossible for God to exist, or God's existence is contingent. but upon further inspection, necessary existence is a necessary part of the property of omnipotence, and omnipotence is a necessary property of God. therefore, it is only metaphysically possible for there to be no God if it is metaphysically impossible for God to exist. so given the MOA is sound, it is not possible for there to be no God.

bolding mine
I again direct you to objection one.