Modal ontological argument

[The Grand Nudger]

....this guy.........

[Belacqua]

A world of stuff in which god doesn't exist is a world of stuff.
A world which nothing exists is nothing. Nonexistence.

That's fascinating, but it does bring up a related question.  Where did God exist before he created the universe?

For time to exist, there has to be a universe. Therefore questions about "before" the universe are incoherent, as Augustine explained.

[brewer]

That's fascinating, but it does bring up a related question.  Where did God exist before he created the universe?

For time to exist, there has to be a universe. Therefore questions about "before" the universe are incoherent, as Augustine explained.

Then god must be incoherent, or fantasy. Take your pick.

[Jehanne]

That's fascinating, but it does bring up a related question.  Where did God exist before he created the universe?

For time to exist, there has to be a universe. Therefore questions about "before" the universe are incoherent, as Augustine explained.

Where did Augustine say that?

[polymath257]

You didn't answer my question, you say an empty world exists. As long as you don't care to explain what you mean by empty world, empty is nonexistent. A nonexistent world .. can't.. exist. Not a possible world.

We live in an expanding Universe, correct?  What, exactly, is the Universe expanding in to?

Answer: the future.

Literally, this is the geometric answer.

[HappySkeptic]

I haven't read much about modal logic, but as most people here have agreed, the premise is unsound. Here are a couple examples of modal arguments.

Let W be the set of possible worlds that might exist after Feb 3, 2022 (i.e. possible futures). If it a person "Bob" is necessarily dead in one of those possible worlds, then he necessarily is dead in all of them. This is absolutely correct logic.

How is it correct? It centers around what "necessarily dead" means. If we assume a world where the past is unchangeable, then if it were found that "Bob" has been dead since 2015, then he is necessarily dead in that world, as opposed to accidentally dead (if he died tomorrow). He necessarily must be dead in all possible worlds in set W.

Let us change W to be the set of possible worlds that might have existed from the moment of the Big Bang. We assume there are some sort of rules which are common to all elements in W, which all cause this Big Bang. If we find that there is one world in W where God necessarily exists, then necessarily God must exist in all elements of W.

Again, how would you determine what necessarily means? It would have to mean that God was required to exist, meaning that God existed prior to the Big Bang, which means that God exists in all post-Big-Bang worlds.

Stating the premise is assuming the conclusion. The premise is bad, and cannot be proven. We are in one of these worlds in W, and we can't even find evidence of a God, and definitely can't determine necessity. How would any of these worlds be able to do the same, given that they arose from whatever same rules that our Big Bang started from?

The premise assumes that there exists an element of Set W that has a certain property. But, there doesn't have to be any such element.

[Jehanne]

We live in an expanding Universe, correct?  What, exactly, is the Universe expanding in to?

Answer: the future.

Literally, this is the geometric answer.

True, but, if the Universe's volume is finite at the beginning, then, it will remain so forever. As such, distances on intergalactic scales are increasing, and, hence, so is its volume.

[Deesse23]

Answer: the future.

Literally, this is the geometric answer.

True, but, if the Universe's volume is finite at the beginning, then, it will remain so forever.  As such, distances on intergalactic scales are increasing, and, hence, so is its volume.

#1 It may finite, but it may not. In the latter case your point is moot
#2 Its expanding into nothing, meaning its just expanding. There is nothing it is expanding into.

When you blow up a balloon, the surface (rubber) just expands. It does not expand into any other surface, like space is not expanding into any space "external" to the universe.

[Jehanne]

True, but, if the Universe's volume is finite at the beginning, then, it will remain so forever.  As such, distances on intergalactic scales are increasing, and, hence, so is its volume.

#1 It may finite, but it may not. In the latter case your point is moot
#2 Its expanding into nothing, meaning its just expanding. There is nothing it is expanding into.

When you blow up a balloon, the surface (rubber) just expands. It does not expand into any other surface, like space is not expanding into any space "external" to the universe.

This is the point that I was trying to make to Klorophyll -- the Universe is expanding into nothing.

[brewer]

#1 It may finite, but it may not. In the latter case your point is moot
#2 Its expanding into nothing, meaning its just expanding. There is nothing it is expanding into.

When you blow up a balloon, the surface (rubber) just expands. It does not expand into any other surface, like space is not expanding into any space "external" to the universe.

This is the point that I was trying to make to Klorophyll -- the Universe is expanding into nothing.

I'm going to use that for as an explanation for my gut, butt and feet.