Resolved: The Modal Ontological Argument is Sound

Greetings,

Welcome to the debate on the modal ontological argument:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

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

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

We will be discussing whether or not this argument is sound.

Round 1

1 of 4

Kohai Administrator

Pro #1

Intro

Thank you, Mal, for accepting this debate! I will warn everyone that my arguments are very technical, and if you are unfamiliar with the concepts of modal logic, I encourage you to stop and read this primer on modal logic: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/.

S5 Modal Logic

Modal logic is a type of logic used to represent and study statements about what is necessary and what is possible. We use modal logic to understand concepts such as knowledge, obligations, and causations [1].

In modal logic, we can divide beings into three categories:

A necessary being - A being that exists in all possible worlds, including the actual one.
A contingent being - A being that could exist in a possible world but could fail to exist in others.
An impossible being - A being that exists in no possible worlds, often due to being logically incoherent.

In addition, we can divide worlds into three types:

The actual world - The world we live in
A possible world - A world that could have existed
An impossible world - A world that could never exist

In S5 modal logic, all possible worlds are accessible from each other, which means that what is possible, true, or necessary is consistent across the modal landscape and if something is impossible in one world then it is impossible in all worlds. It should be noted that something that is possible in one world does not mean that it will actualize in another world. For example, it is possible that we can exceed the speed of light. This means that it is possible in all worlds, including our own. However, our local conditions do not permit this from actualizing.

The MOA

Let a maximally great being ( MGB hereafter) = A maximally great being who possesses all great-making properties, including, but not necessarily limited to:

Moral perfection
Maximal knowledge
Maximal power
Present everywhere
Necessary existence

It should be noted that great-making properties are defined as properties which is objectively better to possess than to lack. Properties that increase a being's perfection are called great making properties. If my opponent denies that great-making properties exists then they must deny statements like "It's better to love than to hate; it's better to be rational than irrational; it's better to be honest than dishonest" loses all meaning, not just in this world, but in all possible worlds!

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists

When we state that it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, we are saying that there is a possible world in which there is an MGB. This MGB would possess all great-making properties to the maximum degree.

This premise is reasonable because there is nothing logically incoherent about such a being and we can easily conceive of a world where an MGB exists. Therefore, we are warranted to accept this premise. If my opponent denies this then they need to prove that an MGB is impossible, which is a tall order.

2. If an MGB may exist, then a maximally great being exists in some possible worlds.

Premise 2 is a logical continuation of modal logic. If something is possible, then it is possible in some possible state of affairs and some possible world. In addition, if something is possible in one world, then due to the accessible relationship between worlds in S5 logic, it holds that it is possible in every single possible world.

3. If an MGB in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

Because an MGB is defined as having all great-making properties, including necessary existence, then by definition it must exist in every single possible world.

4. If an MGB exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

By definition, our world is a possible world.

5. If an MGB exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, an MGB exists.

These follow logically from premise 4. If such a being exists in the actual world, then such a being exists.

Conclusion

The first premise of the MOA is modest - it is merely possible that such a being exists. Within the S5 framework, we have shown that if it is even possible for an MGB to exist, then such a being must exist in every possible world, including the actual.

I look forward to your rebuttals.

Sources

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic

2. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#Moda

Mal

Con #2

Greetings.

Just right out the gate, no evidence was provided to show a maximally great being exists or is necessary or is possible.

That is a being with the following:

"Moral perfection

Maximal knowledge

Maximal power

Present everywhere

Necessary existence"

Therefore, it is not sound to argue . There is no evidence known to us that such a being is possible, exists or is necessary.

Therefore it is sound to state to our knowledge which is , we are without.

Which basically means what?

We don't know.

That's pretty much all. The opposite side is stating about possiblity.

But the description says "if" , many "if"s, then concluded with "therefore a maximally great being exists."

But we have no evidence anywhere.

Taking an unproven possibility asserting it as matter of fact .

Nowhere have I been directed to look to find or see a being so called morally perfect, no error. An all knowing to the max being with all power to the max everywhere.

I just want to say in regards to theism and the theists out there that may try to argue something like this, it'll be futile to attempt to articulate.

Round 2

2 of 4

Kohai Administrator

Pro #3

FORFEITED

Mal

Con #4

I rest my case early.

Round 3

3 of 4

Kohai Administrator

Pro #5

I do apologize to Mal for the forefeit. I've been extremely busy and forgot about this debate.

To reiterate the argument:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

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

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

This is a logically valid syllogism. If all these premises are true then the conclusion is unavoidable. My opponent fails to challenge any of these premises. It's obvious my opponent did not read or did not understand my argument.

Just right out the gate, no evidence was provided to show a maximally great being exists or is necessary or is possible.

did my opponent even read the arguments I wrote? The MOA is not an evidence-based argument for God, rather it is an a priori argument for the exitance of God. The first premise could be written "for all we know an MGB that has these properties might exist." The MOA takes us through the logical consequence of accepting that an MGB is possible. Also, I did provide evidence that a MGB is possible:

It should be noted that great-making properties are defined as properties which is objectively better to possess than to lack. Properties that increase a being's perfection are called great making properties. If my opponent denies that great-making properties exists then they must deny statements like "It's better to love than to hate; it's better to be rational than irrational; it's better to be honest than dishonest" loses all meaning, not just in this world, but in all possible worlds!

When we state that it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, we are saying that there is a possible world in which there is an MGB. This MGB would possess all great-making properties to the maximum degree.

This premise is reasonable because there is nothing logically incoherent about such a being and we can easily conceive of a world where an MGB exists. Therefore, we are warranted to accept this premise. If my opponent denies this then they need to prove that an MGB is impossible, which is a tall order.

We are warranted to accept the first premise because there is nothing incoherent about an MGB. This point is dropped so please extend.

We don't know.

That's pretty much all. The opposite side is stating about possiblity.

But the description says "if" , many "if"s, then concluded with "therefore a maximally great being exists."

But we have no evidence anywhere.

My opponent complains about there being so many ifs, but never actually explains why those if statements are invalid or are false. Does my opponent not know how a deductive argument even works? Again, my opponent mistakes what the MOA is. The MOA is an a priori argument and is not an evidence based argument.

Taking an unproven possibility asserting it as matter of fact .

Again, did my opponent not bother reading my arguments? I showed each premise and gave valid reasons to accept them. None of them are directly challenged.

Conclusion

Every single premise is dropped and so are my arguments behind them.

Mal

Con #6

"This is a logically valid syllogism. If all these premises are true then the conclusion is unavoidable. My opponent fails to challenge any of these premises. It's obvious my opponent did not read or did not understand my argument."

We're looking for evidence. Are you here to actually prove something or just tout reasoning?

If you not able to prove the following statement true : " It is possible that a maximally great being exists", then the thereafter is not valid nor sound to follow up with.

So being that the case, it is actually sound, valid and correct to argue or conclude "it is not known such a being you are positing exists, let alone the possiblity".

See, the opposing side made a big leap early on at the start of the reasoning right out the gate.

"Also, I did provide evidence that a MGB is possible:

The opposing side is moving the goalpost and making ad hoc points.

The following is what the opposing side listed as defining the being posited :

"The MOA

Let a maximally great being ( MGB hereafter) = A maximally great being who possesses all great-making properties, including, but not necessarily limited to:

Moral perfection

Maximal knowledge

Maximal power

Present everywhere

Necessary existence "

So , let's line this up with what was said regarding love , rationality and honesty.

Who or what in reality has perfect morality or moral perfection?

The opposing side has failed to show the possibility of that and where to observe such a being to witness for ourselves.

Who or what in reality has maximal knowledge ?

The opposing side has failed to show the possibility of that and where to observe such a being to witness for ourselves.

Who or what in reality has all power or maximal power ?

The opposing side has failed to show the possibility of that and where to observe such a being to witness for ourselves.

Who or what in reality is omnipresent or present everywhere?

The opposing side has failed to show the possibility of that and where to observe such a being to witness for ourselves.

Who or what in reality has necessary existence with all these traits besides?

The opposing side has failed to show the possibility of necessity period.

Also having love over hate, more rational than not, honest over telling lies doesn't mean necessarily perfect morally ,all powerful, omni present , all knowing, let alone in co-existence.

Now subjectively, somebody can make a case. But we're dealing in objective.

You can be more honest than me and still be imperfect and I can be more powerful than you.

So none of these follows.

"When we state that it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, we are saying that there is a possible world in which there is an MGB. This MGB would possess all great-making properties to the maximum degree."

The opposing side has shown no reason to state such a possibility. It's mere assumption.

"This premise is reasonable because there is nothing logically incoherent about such a being and we can easily conceive of a world where an MGB exists."

If a being is not known to be possible or even exists, we can't make any conclusions about cohesiveness or what is coherent . This is all according to the opposite side.

Matter of fact, how do we know that such a being doesn't exist or impossible to exist because of the suggested traits the opposite side outlined?

The opposing side is constantly entering "possibility"...."possibility". So it's not known fact.

If it turns out a being actually doesn't exist, could it be because not all traits can co-exist in one being?

Here's what we do know and have evidence of and is possible.

I can have more knowledge than someone else. That is possible. But I'm not everywhere. I'm only in one place.

Perhaps the least rational or most irrational individual on the planet was disintegrated by an explosive and is everywhere in an area that I can't be . Thus one being with those traits as far as we know doesn't exist and has been proven to not co-exist.

Is it possible a being to exist with all the above traits?

I don't know.

Asking the same question to the opposing side , the opposing side says "yes".

But has no validity that such co-existence is allowed by nature on any planet or world based on any observation anywhere.

We just have proof that these traits of the most knowledge, most power and perfection, etc. , can exist in isolated, contextual circumstances.

On top of that, each one of those traits are relative. You can continue to find another being with more ability thus negating what "maximum" truly is, where it is or its materialization whatsoever.

"Therefore, we are warranted to accept this premise. If my opponent denies this then they need to prove that an MGB is impossible, which is a tall order."

This is shifting the burden fallacy. The opposing side must prove first the possiblity for the opposing side has made the claim.

I did not make the claim that it is impossible so I have no burden there. It is the opposing side that has made the claim in the so called premise and syllogism and has failed to back it up so furthermore, what is subsequent collapses from a weak faulty foundation.

No warrant has been substantiated at all.

Instead of adding on premises, the opposing side needs to work on strengthening the foundation first .

"We are warranted to accept the first premise because there is nothing incoherent about an MGB. This point is dropped so please extend"

This is backwards. The point has been refuted and of course after that, it gets dropped into oblivion.

There is no substantiation to the possibility to hold coherence.

If I can't even show it's possible that the material I'm using for a foundation of a house is appropriate, how am I then going to give you estimations or calculations of how long it's going to maintain, endure or remain intact?

If I can't even show it's possible for me to jump 20 feet in the air, how can I make comparisons with anything else that can do the same in regards to speed , momentum , velocity, etc?

We don't know if it's possible that a being with maximum power, perfect morality, maximum knowledge,etc., can exist, so we don't know it would be coherent to have all knowledge with no error or no immorality using all power everywhere.

It just goes back to square one. We have no example of an observation of this at all, let alone observation of the possiblity.

"My opponent complains about there being so many ifs, but never actually explains why those if statements are invalid or are false. Does my opponent not know how a deductive argument even works? Again, my opponent mistakes what the MOA is. The MOA is an a priori argument and is not an evidence based argument.

Taking an unproven possibility asserting it as matter of fact .

Again, did my opponent not bother reading my arguments? I showed each premise and gave valid reasons to accept them. None of them are directly challenged.

Conclusion

Every single premise is dropped and so are my arguments behind them."

I'll just reiterate because it's getting circular and I don't expect the opposing side to bring anything next round and ought to just forefeit again.

"We're looking for evidence. Are you here to actually prove something or just tout reasoning?

If you not able to prove the following statement true : " It is possible that a maximally great being exists", then the thereafter is not valid nor sound to follow up with."

I rest my case.

Round 4

4 of 4

Kohai Administrator

Pro #7

Thank you, Mal, for this debate. Unfortunately my opponent has repeatedly shown to be ignorant of S5 logic and has repeatedly dropped several major points that I have brought up.

"This is a logically valid syllogism. If all these premises are true then the conclusion is unavoidable. My opponent fails to challenge any of these premises. It's obvious my opponent did not read or did not understand my argument."

We're looking for evidence. Are you here to actually prove something or just tout reasoning?

If you not able to prove the following statement true : " It is possible that a maximally great being exists", then the thereafter is not valid nor sound to follow up with.

So being that the case, it is actually sound, valid and correct to argue or conclude "it is not known such a being you are positing exists, let alone the possiblity".

See, the opposing side made a big leap early on at the start of the reasoning right out the gate.

Again my opponent shows a lack of understanding regarding this argument. The MOA is a conceptual argument, not an evidential argument. The argument shows that if it is merely possible that an MOA could exist then it necessarily exists in all possible worlds and including the actual world. My opponent has shown zero evidence that an MOA is an impossible being. Since my opponent never shows an MGB is impossible then we are warranted to believe it is possible.

"Also, I did provide evidence that a MGB is possible:

It should be noted that great-making properties are defined as properties which is objectively better to possess than to lack. Properties that increase a being's perfection are called great making properties. If my opponent denies that great-making properties exists then they must deny statements like "It's better to love than to hate; it's better to be rational than irrational; it's better to be honest than dishonest" loses all meaning, not just in this world, but in all possible worlds!"

The opposing side is moving the goalpost and making ad hoc points.

The following is what the opposing side listed as defining the being posited :

There were no goal posts shifts and no ad hoc points. Again, please read the first round where I clearly defined and defended each point.

So , let's line this up with what was said regarding love , rationality and honesty.

Who or what in reality has perfect morality or moral perfection?

The opposing side has failed to show the possibility of that and where to observe such a being to witness for ourselves.

Who or what in reality has maximal knowledge ?

The opposing side has failed to show the possibility of that and where to observe such a being to witness for ourselves

Who or what in reality has all power or maximal power ?

The opposing side has failed to show the possibility of that and where to observe such a being to witness for ourselves.

Who or what in reality is omnipresent or present everywhere?

The opposing side has failed to show the possibility of that and where to observe such a being to witness for ourselves.

Who or what in reality has necessary existence with all these traits besides?

The opposing side has failed to show the possibility of necessity period.

Also having love over hate, more rational than not, honest over telling lies doesn't mean necessarily perfect morally ,all powerful, omni present , all knowing, let alone in co-existence.

Now subjectively, somebody can make a case. But we're dealing in objective.

You can be more honest than me and still be imperfect and I can be more powerful than you.

The answer is a maximally great being. The questions asking for real-world examples completely miss the point. The MOA is not an evidence based argument. It is an a prior deductive argument. The MOA asks if such a being is merely possible then what are the modal consequences of that.

"When we state that it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, we are saying that there is a possible world in which there is an MGB. This MGB would possess all great-making properties to the maximum degree."

The opposing side has shown no reason to state such a possibility. It's mere assumption.

Did my opponent not bother to read my original argument:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

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

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Every single one of these premises follow modal reasoning. I don't know how else to explain it to them.

The rest of my opponent's arguments basically boil down to the same exact misunderstanding of modal reasoning.

"We're looking for evidence. Are you here to actually prove something or just tout reasoning?

I provided evidence. The MOA is not an evidence-based argument but an a priori deductive one. The validity and soundness depend on what is logically possible, not what is empirically observable.

If you not able to prove the following statement true : " It is possible that a maximally great being exists", then the thereafter is not valid nor sound to follow up with."

(1) My opponent has failed to show that an MGB is impossible

(2) I have shown this repeatedly:

When we state that it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, we are saying that there is a possible world in which there is an MGB. This MGB would possess all great-making properties to the maximum degree.

This premise is reasonable because there is nothing logically incoherent about such a being and we can easily conceive of a world where an MGB exists. Therefore, we are warranted to accept this premise. If my opponent denies this then they need to prove that an MGB is impossible, which is a tall order.

My opponent never challenges this!

Dropped points

My opponent never showed an MGB is logically incoherent. They only asked for proof if such a being is possible which I gave repeatedly.
My opponent never demonstrates the logical incoherence of great-making properties
Every single premise is ignored.
Real world examples are irrelevant and not necessary for this argument to work.
My opponent never shows why the syllogism is invalid
My opponent shows complete ignorance in modal reasoning

For that please vote pro.

Mal

Con #8

The opposing has chosen and remained to continue to make baseless assertions and positive claims.

Saying this and that is possible because it's not impossible. There's no proof of possibility period.

The opposing side has failed to prove this .

Case closed.

whiteflame Global Moderator

--> @Kohai

I'll work on it.

Kohai Administrator

--> @Savant, @whiteflame

Can one of you vote on this

pierree

this debate is particularly interesting, although I didn't understand a word. in philosophy class we just done the gödel modal prove

fauxlaw Global Moderator

--> @Kohai

I'll try. Got a lot on my plate, and I go in for final surgery, this on my left knee, on Thursday next

Kohai Administrator

--> @fauxlaw

Please vote

Kohai Administrator

--> @Mal

Sorry I totally forgot about this debate!

SatanLucy

If Mall has accepted this, then I trust it will be interesting.

whiteflame Global Moderator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

This isn't a debate so much as just Pro presenting the MOA, laying out the basis for each of its individual parts, and Con proceeding to reject each one as lacking evidentiary support. As such, there isn't much to say. Pro's argument isn't meaningfully challenged on any level. It's conceptual and it is laid out conceptually. Con could also have approached it conceptually, but refuses to engage with it on that level, instead arguing that it needs empirical research to support it. Con could potentially have made arguments for why the conceptual basis for the MOA is flawed and pointed to the need for evidence in the absence of that, but that still requires engaging with the MOA on a conceptual level first to establish that. Just sitting here repeatedly questioning assumptions in the argument doesn't prove it isn't sound, nor does it seriously challenge Pro's ability to meet a relatively basic burden he set for himself. So, I vote Pro.

LancelotDuLac

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

The MOA is unsound. The rules don't logically follow or explain the conclusion, but Con doesn't break this down in detail or push back hard enough while Pro argues certain stipulations more convincingly.

While Pro clarified their burden of proof and argued that the MOA makes sense conceptually and not based on empirical research, Con's mistake was not questioning the final conclusion of the MOA is not an absolute claim that demands concrete evidence. Con instead dismisses Pro on the basis that Pro is making assumptions and speculation and is required to prove it. But Pro being able to ease their burden was sufficient enough for them to turn the tables on Con.

If Con pushed back just a little more firmly by specifying what Pro has to prove, and why each of the individual rules don't make sense logically. Con could have easily won this debate.

philochristos

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Just so everybody knows my bias, I suspect the MOA is a sound argument, but I don't think there is any non-question-begging way to show that it's sound. The quality of Pro's writing was better than Con's. Con included statements such as, "Taking an unproven possibility asserting it as matter of fact," which is not even a complete sentence. The main crux of Con's case is that Pro needed to prove the possibility of a MGB, but Pro failed to do so. Pro's "proof" of a MGB involved pointing out that there is no logical incoherence between the various great-making properties that a MGB would have to have to be a MGB. Con's claim that Pro hadn't proved anything at this point rings hollow. Does Con think there IS a logical incoherence between any of the great-making properties? Then he should've said so. But how do you show that two statements do not contradict other than just by saying, "Look!"? If the statement, "There's a cookie in the cookie jar," does not contradict the statement, "The moon is not made of cheese," then it's possible for both statements to be true, which means there's a possible world in which both statements are true. What more would be needed to show the two statements are consistent? If there is no explicit contradiction, then the default position is that they are consistent, and the burden of proof falls on the one claiming they are inconsistent. Pro explained what a possible world is, but Con did not appear to grapple with the implications of that explanation, which is that if there is no incoherence between various properties, then there is a possible world in which they co-exist. Pro was right to remind Con that the MOA is an a priori argument, not an evidence-based argument. Con was faulting the argument for not being what it does not even aspire to be.

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Round 4

New comment