The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic
February 13, 2014 at 10:17 pm
(This post was last modified: February 13, 2014 at 11:40 pm by Rational AKD.)
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.
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.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
-Galileo
