Shadow Thread for MOA H2H version 2

[rikuoamero]

Okay, this is the shadow thread for the debate currently underway between For_The_Kingdom and Wiploc on the Modal Ontological Argument.
Just wondering...is anyone interested in what I think about this debate, about it occurring so soon after my own against the very same opponent? Perhaps people can guess what this makes me think about FtK.

[Bust Nak]

Ok, that's fine. But then is that the only reason you can reject the MOA? Simply because it's "question begging"?

It's the only reason I see the proponents of the MOA would accept for rejecting the MOA.

If the question is whether or not the MGB is "possible" you should be able to actually answer that question, and then you've killed the argument. Otherwise, you've left the question unanswered, which is precisely what the proponents of the MOA are happy with.

Are they happy though? They want the argument to be sound, not just valid.

If you can't show why the MGB can't exist, then they hold that you must then leave the door open to the idea that it may very well be "possible".

Right back at them, they must leave the door open to the idea that the MGB may very well be impossible; again that is enough to sink the argument as question begging.

My argument against the MOA demonstrates clearly why the MGB cannot exist. I demonstrate that the very definition of the MGB is a contradiction with known reality. In other words, I show that there exists at least one world where the MGB cannot exist by the definition they gave...

If your argument is acceptable to them, they wouldn't have tried to pull the MOA on you in the first place. Your argument is a variation on the problem of evil. The usual spin they have for the problem of evil, they will use against your variation. It's worth pointing out that I do have anything against your variation, I've always treated the problem of evil as a slam dunk against Omni-style deities. I just know the theists don't care one bit that their perfect god is contradictory with an imperfect creation.

Thus giving them room to claim that until you can answer the question they are justified in standing by their argument.

Don't really care what argument they stand by, as long as they acknowledge that it is not a sound argument.

When I dismiss step #2, for example, it's not because I'm claiming that step #2 is "FALSE". Of course it's not false, it's a tautology!

Then kindly refrain from disagreeing with me, when I say step #2 is true by definition.

In the meantime all you can say is that it's begging a question that you can't answer.

No, it's begging a question that THEY can't answer - they cannot support the claim that the MGB as defined, is possible.

[Divine Insight]

When I dismiss step #2, for example, it's not because I'm claiming that step #2 is "FALSE". Of course it's not false, it's a tautology!

Then kindly refrain from disagreeing with me, when I say step #2 is true by definition.

Step #2 is basically saying "If something is possible, then it's possible".

Of course that's a tautology.

What I am disagreeing with is HOW step #2 is being used.

You claim that because you think you can imagine something then this means that it must be "possible" therefore by step #2 if you THINK something should be possible, THEN it must actually be possible!

But that is the fallacy right there.

Just because you think something should be possible doesn't mean that it actually is possible.

So you can't even use step #2 to support your "Empty World" theory.

Just because step #2 is a tautology DOESN'T mean that just because you claim something is possible that it must then be possible.

That's where I am claiming that #2 fails. I'm not claiming that #2 is not a tautology. I'm claiming that it's being MISUSED. It doesn't logically follow that just because you think something should be possible that step #2 demands that it must then be possible.

[Bust Nak]

Step #2 is basically saying "If something is possible, then it's possible".

Of course that's a tautology.

I know, that's why I asked you to not disagree with me when I say it is true and valid.

What I am disagreeing with is HOW step #2 is being used.

You claim that because you think you can imagine something then this means that it must be "possible" therefore by step #2 if you THINK something should be possible, THEN it must actually be possible!...

That is not what step #2 is saying though, step #2 does not say that if someone THINK something should be possible, THEN it must actually be possible. What you have highlighted here, challenging whether the MGB is actually possible, despite the claim that someone can imagine it, is a problem with premise #1. Namely the claim that: "It is possible that a maximally great being exists."

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 11 by Bust Nak]

It's the only reason I see the proponents of the MOA would accept for rejecting the MOA.

As we saw with my debate, that isn't what happened.

Are they happy though? They want the argument to be sound, not just valid.

Which they cannot and will not do. They try to prove the existence of their god, yet the purpose of the MOA is to prove that all via logical argument. Once we get to the question of soundness, we need data from the real world.

Right back at them, they must leave the door open to the idea that the MGB may very well be impossible; again that is enough to sink the argument as question begging.

Which they won't do. As I showed in my debate, Premise 1 looks like it says "There is a set of circumstances where the MGB exists, there is a set of circumstances where the MGB doesn't exist"...but after I broke it down, I showed that it is not so. All Premise 1 has is "It is true/there is a set of circumstances where the MGB exists".
For all the talk of possible worlds done prior to the formal argument to hold any water, they have to allow for the possibility that the MGB doesn't exist, but they do not. It can't fail to exist, according to them.

[Divine Insight]

Are they happy though? They want the argument to be sound, not just valid.

Which they cannot and will not do. They try to prove the existence of their god, yet the purpose of the MOA is to prove that all via logical argument. Once we get to the question of soundness, we need data from the real world.

And my point is that once they introduce step #4 they reference the real world in their logical argument. At that point they have shot themselves in their own foot. Their argument predicts that our world must be omnibenevolent. But it's clearly not. And a Christian especially cannot argue that our world is omnibenevolent. Christianity relies upon the ideology that our world is so extremely non-benevolent that every single living human deserves to be damned and is in dire need of salvation offered as "Grace".

So this MGB cannot exist in our world. But if that's true, then it cannot be omnipresent either. And if that's true then it can't be "Maximally Great". So the whole thing tumbles like dominions.

[Bust Nak]

As we saw with my debate, that isn't what happened.

Well, I give you credit for trying. Apologists don't tend to concede anything, an argument is a good argument if it can convince people, whether it is logical or not isn't all that relevant to them.

Which they won't do. As I showed in my debate, Premise 1 looks like it says "There is a set of circumstances where the MGB exists, there is a set of circumstances where the MGB doesn't exist"...but after I broke it down, I showed that it is not so. All Premise 1 has is "It is true/there is a set of circumstances where the MGB exists".
For all the talk of possible worlds done prior to the formal argument to hold any water, they have to allow for the possibility that the MGB doesn't exist, but they do not. It can't fail to exist, according to them.

For what it is worth, they don't have to allow for that: "it is possible for X" does not imply "it is possible for not X." Consider this trivial example: "it is possible for the A=A to be true," yet it is not the case that "it is possible for A=A to be false."

Your point is still valid though, they are expecting their audience to just accept the existence of MGB as necessary, to prove that MGB exist. It is a classic question begging fallacy.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 16 by Bust Nak]

Apologists don't tend to concede anything, an argument is a good argument if it can convince people, whether it is logical or not isn't all that relevant to them.

Which is something I find hilarious, given what the debate question was in my debate, especially since it was my opponent, the apologist, who worded the question!

For what it is worth, they don't have to allow for that: "it is possible for X" does not imply "it is possible for not X."

Not 100% of the time, yes, but if one takes the time to write a preamble about possible, and the usage of possible world, and to even give an example of a statement that is either true or false, and it is possible for it to be either (such as Donald Trump is the President)...well, that's where I see the sleight of hand happening. We're being led to believe, thanks to the example about Trump, that the formal argument allows for "It is possible for not X".

Consider this trivial example: "it is possible for the A=A to be true," yet it is not the case that "it is possible for A=A to be false."

Oh? Let's go back to Trump. Trump=President. It is possible for Trump to be President...but according to rules set down in US law, come the end of January 2025 (at the latest), that will be false. So it is possible for the statement "Trump is President" to be false. There is a set of circumstances, such as him being impeached, removed from office, retiring, resigning, or of completing two terms.

Your point is still valid though, they are expecting their audience to just accept the existence of MGB as necessary, to prove that MGB exist. It is a classic question begging fallacy.

Thank you. Given that the MGB/God is supposed to be unique, I have and can have no other prior example from which to draw upon. If someone wants me to imagine that they...might have a car, that is indeed a possibility I can grant. Lots of people own cars. I am aware of this.
But God? Nope. God is unique. Practically everything about God is unique, and so each and every thing God is defined as being or said to be, I require evidence for.

[rikuoamero]

Okay, so let's look at the latest round of debate.

FtK says

Here my opponent asks "What Good is Possible-Word-Speak", and he answers his own question by saying he doesn't know. I find that puzzling, when every single time in his life that he has ever claimed that something is either possible/impossible, probable/improbable...any time he has EVER used any one of those terms in his life in everyday language, he is using PWS, without actually coining it "Possible World Speak".

Which to my eyes only highlights the inherent deception within the MOA. According to FtK, his opponent uses PWS (Possible World Speak) in his everyday life, when he says X is possible/impossible or probably/improbable.
Thing is...when such things are typically said (such as "Its possible I left my car keys on the kitchen counter") we typically mean it may be true, or it may not be true. Maybe I did leave my car keys there, and if I return home, I'll find them on the counter. Or maybe they're not there, maybe the wife has them.
In the Modal Ontological Argument, {it may not be true} is not allowed. In my own dissection of Premise 1, I showed how even attempting to use it results in a gibberish sentence.
So I consider this to be deception. Any time the proponent of the MOA attempts to portray their usage of PWS in the MOA as including "It is possible it is not true", I call that deceptive.

Hell, even if he states "I think Tom Brady will win at least one more super bowl before he retires"....he is stating "there is a possible world at which Tom Brady will win another super bowl before he retires".

We use language like this ever day, yet my opponent makes it seem like the concept is so above & beyond human commonality.

There is a possible world where Brady does NOT win another super bowl. Language like this is not allowed in the MOA.

My opponent can feel free to deal with the KCA whenever he likes. But anytime I am compelled to defend why a MGB, as defined in MOA, is possibly necessarily true, then I will pull from whatever bag of tricks I need to...even if it is the Kalam.

It's up to wiploc to say what he will allow, but this is FtK pulling the exact same tactic as he did with myself. Agreeing to argue the logical validity/soundness of the MOA (I just rechecked the opening post, that is indeed the question for debate) and yet admitting to going outside the argument.
I wonder if FtK asks himself the following - if the logical validity or soundness of Argument A can only be established by pulling from Argument B...of what use is Argument A to begin with?

I challenge ANYONE who can give me a situation/set of circumstances at which 2+2 will = anything besides 4.

Simple. If we define the shapes of 2, +, = and 4 to mean something different (perhaps in a possible world, 2 means what we now think 3 to mean), then we could have 2 + 2 = 6.
Or here in the real world. If we don't use the base 10 system we use everyday, but use say base 4, we get 2 + 2 = 10.
It's funny. Our mathematical operators all depend on what we define them to be (+ doesn't always have to mean addition, we could easily say it means subtraction), and all this argument is...is an argument over definitions.

You can be an atheist and still define God as a MGB.

Now this is just odd. Remember, the MGB according to the MOA cannot fail to exist. Part of the definition of the MGB is that it is maximally great, and that comes with necessary existence attached to it (not something I agree with, but what proponents of the argument say). So...how can an atheist define God as an MGB...and still be an atheist?

-----
Continuing on, there is the disagreement between the two as to whether godless worlds are contradictory. I want to point out to FtK (if he reads this) that his argument (that they are) only makes sense to someone who already accepts that God(s) exist. Myself and wiploc don't believe God(s) exist, so insisting to us that worlds without gods is contradictory...doesn't accomplish anything with us.

Even if we could for second negate the existence of any god(s), then the physical world would be all that exist.

The existence of the physical world is not up for debate. Both parties in the debate are already satisfied that it exists. What is up for debate is the existence of the MGB/God, and so far, all one party has done is define it into existence.

I never thought of this before, but I think in PWS (possible world speak) the universe is necessary. It doesn't make sense to say that there are possible worlds in which worlds don't exist, right? Therefore, in every possible world, a world does exist. Therefore, possible worlds are necessary.

If, in your opinion, that negates the need for gods, I'm okay with that.

Very nicely done, wiploc. I'm kicking myself that I never thought of it myself.

And, presumably, you get to make up the rules of this place you invented. Infinities will be impossible in regular reality, but possible (so that god can be eternal) in super reality, right? Things need causes in regular reality but gods won't need causes in super reality, right?

Again, nicely put. The rules of this super reality are whatever the proponent of the MOA says they are, and since we're operating in a realm beyond the physical world...science need not be invoked so that we can check to see what rules there are (or if there even is a super reality at all)

[rikuoamero]

Let's continue with my ruminations on the debate, now that FtK has posted his latest reply.

To negate one is to grant the other. However, we have evidence through science, philosophy, and mathematics that the universe BEGAN to exist at some point in the finite past. And something that began to exist at some point in the finite past cannot exist necessarily.

Unfortunately for FtK, his definition of MGB (which again for reader's sake is literally ALL we have to work with when it comes to that proposed entity) ends up entailing that the universe and the MGB are one and the same entity. It is (supposedly) omni-present, it is everywhere at every point in space and time.
So if FtK wants to argue that the universe isn't necessary, this means MGB isn't necessary either.
That, or FtK's definitions are in error somewhere.

2. Again, I argue that the concept of a MGB does NOT defy any logical reasoning. It is a logically coherent concept, and all logically coherent concepts are possible (in some possible world). If you disagree, then I'd like you to share with us why God, by definition, cannot exist.

I disagree. FtK's MGB is a necessarily existing entity that is one and the same with the non-necessary universe. That looks to me to be a violation of logic. A and not-A.

Actually, what you and others are imaging is a contingent being. You are not imaging a necessary being. If Being X is necessarily omnipresent, it is impossible for you to imagine Being X to cease its presence. If you think you can imagine this being to cease its presence, what you are actually imagining is a contingent version of the being, and not the necessarily existing one.

That, or FtK's definitions are in error. I think the latter.

But there is a contradiction. If there are no necessarily existing God(s), then the universe must exist necessarily. No gray area. No way around it.

Really? There is literally no other possible explanation for the universe, other than a necessarily existing God? And if we throw out God, we HAVE to go with a necessarily existing universe?
It's a good thing we've got FtK who is apparently so well versed on metaphysics!

Therefore, a necessarily existing God CANNOT be a contradiction.

It's a contradiction if part of the definition for this necessarily existing God is that it is present everywhere, thus making it the universe by definition.

No, it doesn't. One can postulate any nonphysical thing he wants, the question of "necessary, or contingent existence?" would apply to it as well.

And like FtK does with his MGB, I can postulate a nonphysical thing, and say that by sheer definition it is necessary in its existence. Literally just like FtK with his MGB, the only thing we have to work with, with my postulated thing, are the definitions I provide.
If FtK wants to argue that my thing is not necessary, then he's arguing against definition. He would have to allow for the same argument to work against the MGB.

wiploc says

If you want to posit gods, then they are part of the universe.

Ftk responds

Non sequitur. Not only is it non sequitur, but it is logically incoherent. If gods are part of the universe, then those gods began to exist along with the universe. Impossible.

So now FtK is backtracking on his definition of MGB. His MGB is omni-present, it is present everywhere in terms of both space and time. I honestly cannot see how one can that AND say that it is not part of the universe. It's as laughable as saying one is standing on the ground in Washington, D.C., ...but is not within the territory governed by the United States of America.

Even if we were to ignore the whole mess that is saying that God exists 'outside' the universe, then God would, by definition, begin to exist the moment it 'enters' the universe.
About the only way I can see God avoiding this problem, is if we redefine God as not existing at all within the universe, as never entering the universe.

I can prove that the physical world is not necessary, which would in return make theism the default position.

If FtK reads this, that is a straight up God of the Gaps. Let's say we somehow prove the physical world is not necessary and that everyone agrees. How then do we automatically, and by default, say that God caused it?

This will actually help make an even bolder point, that not only is a MGB possible, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for a MGB to NOT exist (which were the implications, anyway).

Which renders any and all talk of Possible Worlds pointless, if you're just going to say the MGB can't not exist at all.

Not at all. God himself is bound by logic and reason. So if a squared circle can't exist on Earth, then it can't exist in Heaven, either. No special pleading, here.

Then God, in his super reality 'prior' to creating the universe, spent an infinite amount of 'time' in between deciding to create the universe, and actually creating it.

Then, kindly enlighten them that once they grant P1, the rest is smooth sailing.

I see no reason to grant P1. I see P1 as being the same as the conclusion. I see P1 as being an equivocation fallacy, as using a sleight of hand.
As FtK says...he needs P1. However, once P1 is shown for what it really is...then the MOA falls apart.

The fact of the matter is, it is the SAME concept.

1. I am going to the store.
2. I am going to the market.
3. I am going to Walmart.
4. I am going to a place that sells groceries.

Same concept.

If we care about precision, then all four of those could be describing four different places, and so, not the same thing at all.

Since your standards can only be subjective, there is no way to "know" what true mercy is, and when to be merciful and when not to be.

Is FtK immune to this problem?

Actual infinities can't/don't exist in ANY imagined world. Not in heaven or on earth. And as far as God and eternity is concerned...there is a way for God to be eternal without having to have traversed infinite time to be so.

And that way is...?
So God as an infinity cannot exist. Cool.

Quite a few people on here made such statements in the thread. It wasn't until it was explained to them that once you admit that God's existence is possible, that therefore, God MUST exist...it wasn't until that particular insight that people started to suddenly doubt the existence of God altogether. Before then, they had no problem admitting that God's existence was possible.

I see FtK is still unaware of what people think. People generally don't give the status of 'necessary' to ANYTHING. What FtK did in his previous thread of 2016 was a 'Aha!" tactic. Instead of leading the person to some new understanding, it was merely meant to get that person to say some thing in particular.

Me: God's existence is possible.

Unbelievers on here: Just because Gods existence is possible, doesn't mean he actually exist.

Me: But if God's existence is possible, God must actually exist...because of reasons x,y,z..

Unbelievers on here: Ok then, well God's existence isn't possible.

Because, once FtK divulges his reasons, it then becomes clear that FtK is talking about a different entity to the non-believer. FtK is talking about an entity that he defines as necessary. The non-believer is not.

So for you to take a small excerpt of what I said and then try to make this "Aha, Gotcha" moment when I clearly elaborated on the point just sentences below it strikes me as rather disingenuous.

Given that this is what the MOA is designed to do...I call this rich.

The truth value of my Step 1 supplements what we know, that the universe began to exist and it owes its existence to a necessarily existing mind, by default.

This is NOT something that is scientifically accurate. Where in science does it say that the origin/explanation for the universe is a non-physical mind?
Nope, this is nothing more than God of the Gaps.

Real truth does not lead to absurdities...but rather, it leads to more truth.

I agree, which is why I don't support the MOA. The MOA has us equating the universe with God, and saying it is both necessary and contingent.

C. He has not demonstrated why the existence of a MGB is impossible, which is the meat and potatoes of the entire argument.

FtK hasn't demonstrated that his MGB exists. Instead, he ignores the logical implications of the very definitions he gives it, and insists that when one does not believe the universe to be contingent, his MGB and only his MGB is the only possible explanation for it. His version of Step 1 requires him to make a God of the Gaps.

[Divine Insight]

Let's continue with my ruminations on the debate, now that FtK has posted his latest reply.

2. Again, I argue that the concept of a MGB does NOT defy any logical reasoning. It is a logically coherent concept, and all logically coherent concepts are possible (in some possible world). If you disagree, then I'd like you to share with us why God, by definition, cannot exist.

FtK is simply wrong here. There are logical problem with the MGB as it is defined.

To begin with FtK claims that "all logically coherent concepts are possible (in some possible world)."

This already creates logical contradictions. Why? Because the MGB is defined to be omnipresent.

But what does omnipresent mean?

If it only meant that the MGB needed to be omnipresent within the possible worlds that in which it does exist then it wouldn't necessarily be a problem. However, if by omnipresent we are demanding that this MGB exists in "all possible worlds" then we do indeed have a logical problem.

And the MOA demands that its MGB does indeed exist in all possible world. It assumes this in argument #3:

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

Argument #3 is based entirely on the idea that "omnipresent" means that it exists everywhere (i.e. in all possible worlds).

Therefore we have at least two logical inconsistencies.

The first is to simply imagine a non-benevolent world. There is nothing illogical incoherent about the concept of a non-benevolent world. Therefore, by FtK's own proclamation if there is nothing logically incoherent about an imagined world, then it must be "possible". So a non-benevolent world must be possible. This logically contradictions the existence of an omnibenevolent MGB existing in "All possible worlds".

Of course, if we were just doing arm-chair philosophy we could start arguing about whether a non-benevolent world is actually logically consistent. Perhaps a non-benevolent world could not exist for some purely logical reason?

However, this bring us to the second very REAL problem. Our world does exist and is clearly not omnibenevolent. Therefore we have rock-solid proof that all possible worlds are not omnibenevolent and therefore this omnipresent omnibenevolent MGB cannot possibly exist in all possible world. (i.e. it can't be simultaneously omnipresent and omnibenevolent). So it cannot exist as defined.

Q. E. D.

So FtK is wrong to proclaim that this idea of an MGB is logically coherent. It's clearly not.

Let's not forget also that in logic a single counter-example to some claim is sufficient to show that it is false. Our world is an obvious counter-example to the existence of this imagine MGB. So this arbitrarily defined entity clearly cannot exist.

So it's over. FtK is wrong to claim that the MGB is a logically coherent idea. Even if our world didn't exist we could imagine a world that is not omnibenevolent and that alone should rebuke the MGB. But with our world blatantlty staring us if the face we don't even need to rely on pure imagination, we have a very real example of the existence of a non-benevolent world in the real actual world.

So the MGB is dead. It's been contradicted by the existence of the real world.