The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic

[DeistPaladin]

Speaking of YouTube clips, here's one I'm sometimes reminded of whenever an apologist comes along offering no evidence, fallacious reasoning but a lot of...

[Darkstar]

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.

If I may:

George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.

Going by that same logic, by changing only one property of god (the physical likeness of spaghetti) and leaving all others, why is it so suddenly bizarre? It isn't self-contradictory, so I fail to see the problem.

[Rational AKD]

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

I believe I tried responding to that post but was frustrated because my computer was bugging out while I was typing causing me to lose all my work over and over again. your objection is not relevant to this argument since it still fulfills the purpose. however, you will find your answer here.

---

With that in mind, Bullinger’s fourth list of idiomatic verbs deals with active verbs that “were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do” (p. 823, emp. in orig.). To illustrate, in commenting on Exodus 4:21, Bullinger stated: “ ‘I will harden his heart (i.e., I will permit or suffer his heart to be hardened), that he shall not let the people go.’ So in all the passages which speak of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. As is clear from the common use of the same Idiom in the following passages” (1968, p. 823). He then listed Jeremiah 4:10, “ ‘Lord God, surely thou hast greatly deceived this people’: i.e., thou hast suffered this People to be greatly deceived, by the false prophets….’ ” Ezekiel 14:9 is also given as an example of this type of usage: “ ‘If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet’: i.e., I have permitted him to deceive himself.” James MacKnight, in a lengthy section on biblical idioms, agrees with Bullinger’s assessment that in Hebrew active verbs can express permission and not direct action. This explanation unquestionably clarifies the question of God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. When the text says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, it means that God would permit or allow Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened.
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte...ticle=1205

---

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

which is why I clearly defined it in the Purpose portion of my post.

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?"

I showed this is not true in objection 2.

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

sure.
1. he is an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect immaterial mind.
2. relative to our reality, he is everywhere, outside himself he is nowhere for nothing exists apart from him (which means all of us and our reality are constructs of his thoughts).
3. irrelevant. if he is coherent he exists according to this argument.

Going by that same logic, by changing only one property of god (the physical likeness of spaghetti) and leaving all others, why is it so suddenly bizarre? It isn't self-contradictory, so I fail to see the problem.

because you aren't taking just one attribute so you can add one. you're taking everything away from the concept of spaghetti that makes it spaghetti. you can't just say it's immaterial, but you must also say it's no longer food, it no longer has shape color or sense. it other words you're saying it's an omnipotent spaghetti monster that is not spaghetti and is not a monster since it's immaterial.

[Darkstar]

Going by that same logic, by changing only one property of god (the physical likeness of spaghetti) and leaving all others, why is it so suddenly bizarre? It isn't self-contradictory, so I fail to see the problem.

because you aren't taking just one attribute so you can add one. you're taking everything away from the concept of spaghetti that makes it spaghetti. you can't just say it's immaterial, but you must also say it's no longer food, it no longer has shape color or sense. it other words you're saying it's an omnipotent spaghetti monster that is not spaghetti and is not a monster since it's immaterial.

Fair enough. Just wondering, does your argument give any reason to stop at just one god, or would it justify an infinite polytheism? I still find the notion that omnipotence is even possible (logically or otherwise) to be dubious at best.

[Rational AKD]

Fair enough. Just wondering, does your argument give any reason to stop at just one god, or would it justify an infinite polytheism? I still find the notion that omnipotence is even possible (logically or otherwise) to be dubious at best.

the argument doesn't, but there is a separate reason that shows multiple omnipotent beings are logically impossible. the reason is the possibility of conflict of wills. if there are 2 omnipotent beings, for example, one of them wants unicorns and the other doesn't. if they are both omnipotent, nothing should be able to stop their wills, thus unicorns should exist and not exist simultaneously. this is incoherent. since this incoherence can't be possible, there can only be one omnipotent being.

[Whateverist]

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

sure.
1. he is an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect immaterial mind.

Oh sure because those are so common. We're always coming across immaterial minds. It only stands to reason that one of them would be perfect and uber uber. Sorry I doubted you.

2. relative to our reality, he is everywhere, outside himself he is nowhere for nothing exists apart from him (which means all of us and our reality are constructs of his thoughts).

Now you're just pulling our legs, right? You can't point to one so .. he's everywhere. Right.

3. irrelevant. if he is coherent he exists according to this argument.

Well there you go then. He obviously does not exist.

[Darkstar]

Fair enough. Just wondering, does your argument give any reason to stop at just one god, or would it justify an infinite polytheism? I still find the notion that omnipotence is even possible (logically or otherwise) to be dubious at best.

the argument doesn't, but there is a separate reason that shows multiple omnipotent beings are logically impossible. the reason is the possibility of conflict of wills. if there are 2 omnipotent beings, for example, one of them wants unicorns and the other doesn't. if they are both omnipotent, nothing should be able to stop their wills, thus unicorns should exist and not exist simultaneously. this is incoherent. since this incoherence can't be possible, there can only be one omnipotent being.

Couldn't they just be in stalemate, then?

How exactly are we defining omnipotence here anyway? Is it in a way that avoids that "can god create a rock he can't lift?" problem? Omnipotence paradox

[Rational AKD]

Couldn't they just be in stalemate, then?

How exactly are we defining omnipotence here anyway? Is it in a way that avoids that "can god create a rock he can't lift?" problem?

stalemate? how do you have a stalemate between existence and non-existence? it's one or the other, a unicorn can't neither exist or not exist. this means one of their wills have to be stronger, but since both are omnipotent neither can be stronger. this is the contradiction.

there are 2 aspects of omnipotence. an active aspect: the ability to do anything logically possible; and a descriptive aspect: cannot be vulnerable or overcome by anything. the descriptive aspect is what makes P3 correct. if God were made of matter, he would be vulnerable which contradicts his omnipotence so he can't be made of matter.

[Darkstar]

stalemate? how do you have a stalemate between existence and non-existence? it's one or the other, a unicorn can't neither exist or not exist. this means one of their wills have to be stronger, but since both are omnipotent neither can be stronger. this is the contradiction.

I mean like them holding each other in check. If unicorns don't exist, they continue to not exist. If they do, they continue to exist. But...that would still mean there would be something they could not do, so...

there are 2 aspects of omnipotence. an active aspect: the ability to do anything logically possible; and a descriptive aspect: cannot be vulnerable or overcome by anything. the descriptive aspect is what makes P3 correct. if God were made of matter, he would be vulnerable which contradicts his omnipotence so he can't be made of matter.

I've heard Christians claim that god created the laws of logic. If so (you can still reply that he didn't), why would he be bound by them? Also, how do you know a non-physical being is invulnerable for certain?

[Rational AKD]

Oh sure because those are so common. We're always coming across immaterial minds. It only stands to reason that one of them would be perfect and uber uber. Sorry I doubted you.

as I said, I only have to show the concept doesn't have contradictions. the argument then proves it exists.

Now you're just pulling our legs, right? You can't point to one so .. he's everywhere. Right.

you really don't understand the significance of what I just said... tell me this, where are you in relation to your thoughts? since your thoughts are a part of you, you could answer everywhere. now, imagine that you created a fictional character. that character exists in your thoughts. can that character point to you? not unless you manifest yourself in your thoughts, but even then that's only a representation of you, not the real you. this is the philosophical view I have taken. we are a part of God's thoughts, and as such this explains many problems that I won't go into on this thread. the point is, God is everywhere relative to us because we are a part of his thoughts.

Well there you go then. He obviously does not exist.

since when does coherence require me to have knowledge of the origin of that knowledge? the origin doesn't matter, you can judge the coherence by confirming logical implications of the concept. that's why your question is irrelevant.