Objection(s) to the Modal Ontological Argument

[FishFace]

Hi,

I mentioned in the other thread that I was trying to wriggle out a decent objection to Plantinga's Ontological argument (I think there's a WP article on it, if you need more info) I'd like to throw this objection out to you guys to see what you make of the logic.

Plantinga's Ontological Argument states that, to prove a maximally great being exists, we must simply prove that it is possible for said being to exist, since a maximally great being exists, by definition, in all possible worlds. However, Plantinga's definition of 'maximally great' DEPENDS on the being existing in all other worlds.
Plantinga appears to be arguing from the wrong direction; he states that, since it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, it must exist in all possible worlds, by its definition. The correct direction of logic seems in actual fact to be the other way: IF it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, it must exist in all possible worlds.

If you find a hole, rip it open; I don't want to write bullshit on an examination paper unless I have to. (That's writing figurative bullshit, not writing the word, "bullshit.")

[Tenspace]

It seems to echo (inversely) David Deutsch's opinion (1998?) that, "if we can think of it, then we have already done it" - a philosophy that if we are able to conceive of virtual reality, then it is possible we're living in one now. Check out his book "The Fabric of Reality" for more.

I personally would shred it at the statement, "maximally great being exists", because there is no proof, definitive or circumstantial, that allows the opening statement to be viewed as a truth. It's the same with Genesis. I negate the balance of the bible on the fact that the first story is so filled with fallacy and mistruth, nee fantasy, so the rest of the book must be shite, too, right?

I know there's a philosophical term for that position, but I'm not the philosophy guy here, so I'll leave that for someone else to bring up.

[Silentknight]

Using an unknown to prove another unknown does not advance our knowledge in any way. As Tenspace pointed out there is no evidence whatsoever that a maximally great being exists in the first place, therefore it cannot be held as an assumption and cannot be used as a premise. Here the very thing that the argument sets out to prove is being assumed. It's so circular you could roll it down a hill.

[ocmpoma]

The entire argument is semantic bullshit. I can just as easily define the Great Garbleblaster to be a being that must exist if I can think of it existing. Since I obviously can think of the Great Garbleblaster as existing, it therefore exists!

Pure, unfiltered BS.

[FishFace]

It's so circular you could roll it down a hill.
Consider that phrase stolen... I'm going to have to find a use for it somewhere.

Anyway, the point of the modal Ontological Argument is that a maximally great being must exist in a possible world, since it is possible. Basically, anything that is possible exists - in a possible world, not necessarily in the real world.

[Sternwallow]

It's so circular you could roll it down a hill.
Consider that phrase stolen... I'm going to have to find a use for it somewhere.

Anyway, the point of the modal Ontological Argument is that a maximally great being must exist in a possible world, since it is possible. Basically, anything that is possible exists - in a possible world, not necessarily in the real world.
My philosophy is somewhat out of date so this question may reveal a personal disconnect. Doesn't "maximally great being" mean one that is greater than every other being in all detectable respects?

I can easily imagine that any world that had beings would have one that was maximally long, maximally heavy, maximally smelly and so-on. It should be possible on such a world for there to be a single being that is maximal in all of the characteristics. Such a being would not be a god in its own world and there would not necesarily be only one such being.

What have I missed?

[Philboid Studge]

It should be possible on such a world for there to be a single being that is maximal in all of the characteristics.
Could it be maximally large and maximally small at the same time? (Or does maximality only work in one direction?)

[Silentknight]

It's not original. I read it on a site debunking arguments for God, but I can't remember where.

[Sternwallow]

It should be possible on such a world for there to be a single being that is maximal in all of the characteristics.
Could it be maximally large and maximally small at the same time? (Or does maximality only work in one direction?)
Good point. I don't know. That's why I asked. I guess, if there is more than one size of being, none can be maximally large and minimally large simulatneously.

[FishFace]

I can easily imagine that any world that had beings would have one that was maximally long, maximally heavy, maximally smelly and so-on. It should be possible on such a world for there to be a single being that is maximal in all of the characteristics. Such a being would not be a god in its own world and there would not necesarily be only one such being.
The 'what is perfect?' criticism is a fairly standard objection, I think, but Plantinga explicitly categorises what he considers 'maximally great,' and I'd rather concentrate on attacking the logic, since, while another method is an equally valid method, it's not nearly as satisfying, and the logic irks me, anyway.

[Sternwallow]

OK. Just trying to narrow down that "maximally great" phrase.

[Oz]

Try here:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/unmovedmover.html

The refutation is near the top.

The Modern Ontological Argument: Alvin Plantinga

"E* entails the property exist in every possible world. E* is exemplified in W*; hence if W* had been actual, E* would have been exemplified by something that existed and exemplified it in every possible world.... That is, there actually exists a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect; and that exists and has these properties in every possible world. This being is God."
--Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity, p.215-216; Oxford University Press, 1974.

A somewhat more sophisticated version of the ontological argument has been proposed by the Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga's formulation uses the notion of possible worlds; any world that can be imagined to exist, including our own, is a possible world. Plantinga goes on to argue that if there is any possible world in which God exists, which there plainly is, then God must exist in all possible worlds, including this one. In more formal terms, Plantinga's argument proceeds as follows:

1. A being is maximally excellent in a possible world if and only if it is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect in that world.
2. A being is maximally great in a possible world if and only if it is maximally excellent in all possible worlds.
3. There is a possible world in which there exists a being that possesses maximal greatness.
4. Therefore, there exists a being that possesses maximal greatness in every possible world.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Though it uses different language, Plantinga's argument relies on the same fallacious trick of trying to define something into existence. What it essentially says is, "There is a possible world containing an entity that exists in all possible worlds," or more simply, "By definition, God exists if we can imagine him to exist." This is not legitimate. Possible worlds, by the definition of what it means to be a possible world, are completely disjoint; they cannot influence each other in any way. (If two possible worlds could affect each other, they would not be separate possible worlds, but the same possible world, again by definition.) Therefore, it is invalid to define something such that its existence in one possible world "causes" it to exist in another possible world. An unlimited array of absurdities would ensue if that was the case.

For a particularly dramatic example of this, consider the following proposition: "There is a possible world containing an entity that destroys all possible worlds." If we accept Plantinga's implicit claim that one possible world can be defined in terms of other possible worlds, we must admit that such a world is conceivable. But if there is such a possible world, by definition there will be no possible worlds. Therefore, Plantinga's logic has led to an obvious absurdity: it has just proved that nothing exists. The solution, again, is to recognize that defining the contents of one possible world in relation to another is logically illegitimate and meaningless.

There is another, very obvious way to counter this argument. Consider this:

1. There is a possible world in which there is no entity that possesses maximal greatness.
2. Therefore, there is no entity that possesses maximal greatness.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

The logic of this argument would seem to be airtight. Certainly there is no logical contradiction involved in conceiving of a world that possesses no maximally great entity, and therefore this is a possible world; and therefore, by Plantinga's own logic, there is no such entity in any possible world and therefore there is no God. As yet, proponents of the ontological argument have offered no reply to this.

[psyadam]

my maximally great being would be maximally gay. Sometimes he would cross dress and he would appear as the statue of liberty in all the great gay pride parades. He would also be able to maximize all minimums, have a knowledge of number theory and calculus, and could juggle. And cook good food and be slightly overweight. And also be great in the bedroom.

[Silentknight]

Good point psyadam. If God can be conjured into existence by attributing a maximal trait to him (such as ""greatness"") then the same should work for any other traits you might want to tack on to God's personality. If theists accept the existence of God on this basis then they should also accept that he is maximally gay. If you overload this argument then a number of contradictions quickly surface. This being can have maximally opposing attributes, such as good and evil, love and hate, pacifism and belligerence.

Actually that's not too different from the biblegod itself. :rolleyes:

[psyadam]

i'm serious about my version of God that's the type of God I could like.

edit: 256 posts! whohoo! yay for binary!

edit: yes, god essentially is whatever you want him to be. Religion is a grouping together of people who have a common conception--unfortunately in the case of homosexuality that conception is harmful.

[FishFace]

@SilentKnight + Psyadam, definitions of maximally great, while fine for other debates, do not apply as a refutation. Plantinga explicitly defines his 'maximally great,' and uses his proof with that in mind - just because he's not proved your definition, doesn't mean he hasn't proved his.

However, Oz, that is absolutely just what I wanted. Put my musings into words, as it were. Given that we're probably going to have an essay question on that in the exam this year, I shall memorise it.

[Swk6]

Pamela Anderson about 5 years ago, prior to the Hep C was pretty maximally great. Does that count?

[Rocketman]

The entire argument is semantic bullshit. I can just as easily define the Great Garbleblaster to be a being that must exist if I can think of it existing. Since I obviously can think of the Great Garbleblaster as existing, it therefore exists!

Pure, unfiltered BS.
Perhaps, I choose to see it more as an incomplete thought than simply bullshit. And I don't believe it is simply semantics. The mind concieves--invention occurs--reality is changed. Does this mean because I think of god that god exists? Not physically--but there is now a conception of god in place. When it is communicated it becomes a meme and therefore exists. Does it possess the attributes of god? No. But there are no unicorns either--but i can draw a reasonable facsimile of one and have it identified.

Then Barnum got into the act with his goat with the single horn. It is conceivable--should someone wish to--to genetically create a white, one horned horse with a beard.

A reasonably advanced scientific culture could recreate most of the "miracles" attributed to god in the bible.

This doesn't mean that god exists--but it does mean that the concept is out there.

And the other point is that to the believer--it is real. It does exist. It informs their actions and modifies their choices. To simply attempt to put it aside in the face of that is missing a very key point in uncerstanding belief.

Look I know I'm being a little unclear here---but I'm trying to work through an idea. Bear with me. I'll give it some more thought and get back to you on it.

[FishFace]

You've completely missed the point. The Ontological argument is trying to argue the presence of God in the actual, physical world, not in someone's head - the existence of God as a thing, not a concept.

If you read Plantinga's argument, he specifically states what qualities God should posess.

[calpurnpiso]

You've completely missed the point. The Ontological argument is trying to argue the presence of God in the actual, physical world, not in someone's head - the existence of God as a thing, not a concept.

If you read Plantinga's argument, he specifically states what qualities God should posess.
yes, but the concept "god" must first be defined!..and since without the brain to create the concept there is no idea of god to be thought of, one must first realize primary causes are not god since they have no brains that could zapp things into existence by merely thinking them into existence!! So, the concept god is a no brainer, thought of by delusional, ignorant and diseased brains. The concept god is not universal, since each human brain thinks of it very differently. The many faces of 'god' makes it IMPOSSIBLE to exist, for if it did, each brain would "see" it or perceive it uniformely, immutable and unchangable!.

So, since the concept god lacks logic it becomes obvious it can ONLY exists in retarded ignorant and defective brains.:cool:

..and about Platina, well, this schizophrenic idiot lived in the 16th Century!...Alas, Constantinople had fallen to the Turks. The Christ-psychotics in the Vatican were in FEAR of the comet of 1456. These nuts were accusing everyone of heressy. it was during these years of IGNORANCE and SUPERSTITION that Crazy Platina wrote: " Vitæ Pontificum Platinæ historici liber de vita Christi ac omnium pontificum qui hactenus ducenti fuere et XX"

The lives of the Popes and life of Christ !! And this man was sane?....:lol: Alas, and one must take serious this idiot arguments about the "qualities of god"? :lol::lol:

[FishFace]

OK, stop ranting for a moment, cal. You're pretty delusional yourself:

yes, but the concept "god" must first be defined!
I explicitly stated that Plantinga does this, so Rocketman's point doesn't really work - Plantinga's not out to prove that a God in the mind exists (easy) but to prove that God in the real world exists (bzzzt)
Fuck knows what you're talking about with the brains... That just sounds like crazy ranting, to me. God doesn't really need a brain to be the personal God of classical theism.

The concept god is not universal, since each human brain thinks of it very differently. The many faces of 'god' makes it IMPOSSIBLE to exist, for if it did, each brain would "see" it or perceive it uniformely, immutable and unchangable!.
What?? Just because different people see something differently doesn't mean it can't exist - it just means that at least one person is wrong. You should read the book 'Independent Witness.'

[calpurnpiso]

fishface wrote:

'Ok, stop ranting for a moment, cal. You're pretty delusional yourself. "

Of course!!....remember I'm a mutated evolved primate like ALL human beings, IOW, a CRAZY Ape. We humans are simply an abomination of nature..a defective abnormal primate with the disease of thinking, pretending delusions reflect reality!...Alas, you do not see a NORMAL primate, doing that!

The difference is I KNOW it. The vast majority believe they were zapped into existence by a "god"!! :lol::lol::lol:..is this sane thinking to you? :lol:

"That just sounds like crazy ranting, to me. God doesn't really need a brain to be the personal God of classical theism. "

Again, one must first DEFINE god. Is that so difficult to do? God doesn't need a brain?..of course not, but without our brains GOD as well as many things could not be perceived. Their existence becoming simply a THOUGHT produce by our IMAGINATION. Do flying silicon based purple penises with two brains exist? Well, since the universe is soooo large......... for each grain of sand in all of earth beaches there are one BILLION stars......the posibility of this penis existing increases. So it is god!!.......but at least I DEFINED the penis, you have NOT defined god!!

Who is the author of Independent Witness"? a Christ-psychotic?....is this a NOVEL a Sci-fi book or something based on FACTS?

Have you read the author's BIOGRAPHY? what kind of religious indoctrication he had?....did he/she had health problems during childhood? etc etc....

I read the AUTHOR'S biography, nationality, and beliefs BEFORE I read their books!!....I like to know the health of their BRAINS who made them put their ideas on paper.

I suggest you read a TRUE BOOK based on FACTS: What's THought by Eric baum.

[calpurnpiso]

FishFace wrote:

"What?? Just because different people see something differently doesn't mean it can't exist - it just means that at least one person is wrong. You should read the book 'Independent Witness.' "

Did you bumped your head? If two people see the SAME OBJECT and have a different interpretation it doesn't mean one of them is wrong!. Both could RIGHT but they view the object from a DIFFERENT angle. Everything is RELATIVE to the way it is perceived and its scale.

If I hold a cube with 3 sides painted red and 3 white for a group of students to see, some will SWEAR the cube is ALL RED, some will swear it is all WHITE, and few will claim it is both!! NONE of them is wrong!....ALL are in a way CORRECT.

You must accept you're nothing more than an evolved crazy primate. I know this FACT is difficult to accept, but hey, that's what religious-psychosis are for. Faulty brains make the schizophrenic happy as they do the Christ-psychotics. Religious-psychosis make us FORGET reality and immerse our brains in a world of happy delusions.

Remember, the TRUTH will set you free...:cool:

[ocmpoma]

Rocket, I'll agree with Fishy here - though not as harsh, since I also agree with what you're saying -- God The Concept does exist, and exists merely because someone somewhere dreamed (dreamt?) it up. But, as Fishy says, the argument is trying to establish that a real, actual, live (sorta) god is out there. And my point is that you can talk all you want, but that don't make it so. Defining something as existing because if properties a) b) and c) are met does not mean, even if a) b) and c) are correct, that the being actually exists. It's BS to suggest otherwise.
As Oz showed, the same logic could be used to prove that there is no "maximally great being"; and as I said, it can be used to show that the Great Garbleblaster exists. I could also use it to say that:
1) God is a perfectly good, omnipotent being that exists if I own a dog.
2) I do, in fact, own a dog.
3) God exists!

I could go on about the Map not being the Territory, but... I just don't feel like it. So, instead, I'll just say that words, in the end, are just words - and they don't always reflect reality even if they seem to:

This statement is false.

[Sternwallow]

Ocmpoma, your "This statement is false." is false, but my "This statement is false." is true.

[Oz]

Just to be clear, Ocmpoma, all I did was copy and paste. Adam (I think that's his name) deserves the credit.

[FishFace]

Again, one must first DEFINE god. Is that so difficult to do? God doesn't need a brain?..of course not, but without our brains GOD as well as many things could not be perceived. Their existence becoming simply a THOUGHT produce by our IMAGINATION. Do flying silicon based purple penises with two brains exist? Well, since the universe is soooo large......... for each grain of sand in all of earth beaches there are one BILLION stars......the posibility of this penis existing increases. So it is god!!.......but at least I DEFINED the penis, you have NOT defined god!!
Plantinga defines God, as I said. I forget what started this, but the relevance to silicon based purple penises is tenuous at best. Plantinga defines God as "A being who is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient," and uses this to 'prove' God. (Don't bother with the internal contradictions - I know them.)

Who is the author of Independent Witness"? a Christ-psychotic?....is this a NOVEL a Sci-fi book or something based on FACTS?

Have you read the author's BIOGRAPHY? what kind of religious indoctrication he had?....did he/she had health problems during childhood? etc etc....

I read the AUTHOR'S biography, nationality, and beliefs BEFORE I read their books!!....I like to know the health of their BRAINS who made them put their ideas on paper.

I suggest you read a TRUE BOOK based on FACTS: What's THought by Eric baum.
Interesting assumption you make there! Independent witness is a novel - no religious anything going on there. The book is by Henry Cecil, and describes how different witnesses independently give different accounts of the same incident.

As for your other post, you veer of the point a bit. Let me remind you of what you said:

The concept god is not universal, since each human brain thinks of it very differently. The many faces of 'god' makes it IMPOSSIBLE to exist, for if it did, each brain would "see" it or perceive it uniformely, immutable and unchangable!.
Just because two people see something differently doesn't mean it didn't happen at all. In the cube example, if I say "the cube is all red," I am clearly wrong. The cube is half-red, half-white. Same with the concept of God - if one person says "God is omniscient" and another person says "God is not omniscient," that does not mean God doesn't exist. Other things do show that, but, ignoring them, one or other could be correct.

You must accept you're nothing more than an evolved crazy primate. I know this FACT is difficult to accept, but hey, that's what religious-psychosis are for. Faulty brains make the schizophrenic happy as they do the Christ-psychotics. Religious-psychosis make us FORGET reality and immerse our brains in a world of happy delusions.
Whaaat, where does evolution come into this? Of course I'm an evolved primate, nothing difficult to accept about that. Stop pretending everyone who disagrees with you must be theist.

[Rocketman]

Okay I get that. And common sense agrees that just because you have an idea doesn't mean that there is a physical reality brought into being because you have that idea.

All i was sayingis that when you develop an idea that is then communicated--then it takes on a reality in terms of its ability to cause and respond to causes.

No i do not beleive that becasue joe christian beleives in god that the god he concieves of exists.

What I do think is that the collective concept of "god" does. It has effect. It produces things like internet blogs about it.

And I appreciate your less harsh response. I was crying all the way over to fishfaces mothers place--still crying while I sodomized her and busted my nut on the top of her head.

I can't help it. I'm sensitive.

[calpurnpiso]

Fish face wrote:

"if one person says "God is omniscient" and another person says "God is not omniscient," that does not mean God doesn't exist. "

Yes but it doesn't mean it does either!. One must ALWAYS take into account the LOGIC of it all. This can be applied to: Tooth Fairies, Pink Unicorns, Ghosts, Spirits, Space Aliens, resurrecting saviors etc etc. BTW, you use the word 'god' loosely and WITHOUT defining it. This fact ignores the relativism of the word. As in my Red/White cube example ALL is relative to the angle in which it is perceived and its scale. What you see and define as god could be a Tooth Fairy to others and a product of a malfunctioning brain to me! After all, didn't you CREATE the idea of god with YOUR brain or was it that you brain picked up the idea of god, as a radio picks up waves, from the divine?...What is it?

The brain can be made to DISTORT concepts on the lab by merely STIMULATING its temporal lobes with electromagnetism and chemicals. This CLEARLY shows god is simply a PRODUCT of the brain to explain that which doesn't compute. Brains are too arrogant to say: I do not know...so, they INVENT the concept of been 'created" by a god! The facts is, we are simply evolved mutated primates. Crazy apes, that CREATED god in their image to erase the fact they are EVOLVED ANIMALS. This leaves the concept god existing in those brains infected by religious-psychosis, where irrational beliefs are accepted as tangible realities. Crazy is as crazy thinks and acts...:)

[FishFace]

And I appreciate your less harsh response. I was crying all the way over to fishfaces mothers place--still crying while I sodomized her and busted my nut on the top of her head.

I can't help it. I'm sensitive.
I'm an arrogant bastard and was still fired up after something else pissed me off ;) As for me darling mam, looking at her, I'm not sure you really wanted to say that, but whatever floats your odd little boat.

"if one person says "God is omniscient" and another person says "God is not omniscient," that does not mean God doesn't exist. "

Yes but it doesn't mean it does either!
I didn't even suggest it did...

BTW, you use the word 'god' loosely and WITHOUT defining it.
For the purposes of this, it doesn't even matter what how you define it. Most of them make little sense anyway.

The brain can be made to DISTORT concepts on the lab by merely STIMULATING its temporal lobes with electromagnetism and chemicals. This CLEARLY shows god is simply a PRODUCT of the brain to explain that which doesn't compute.
That is CLEARLY logic-deficient. Let me just say back what I just think i read:

The brain can be made to malfunction through the use of electromagnetism and chemicals, therefore God is a product of the brain.

Relationship, please? At best, you've proven the possibility, but you didn't need that example. A reference to imagination suffices.