Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Ontological Argument Begs The Question?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Modal Ontological Argument

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world
P5: A maximally great being exists in the actual world
C: A maximally great being exists

Does The MOA Beg The Question?

P1: The proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a standard of greatness exists
P2: If the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a standard of greatness exists, the standard of greatness the proposition assumes exists is a maximally great being
C: Therefore, the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a maximally great being exists

Defending P1 is easy, as the proposition in question posits possible "greatness". Without a standard of greatness that exists the proposition is meaningless and arbitrary. The proposition self-evidently assumes a standard of greatness (as proponents attribute omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence to greatness).

P2 is true because if the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes a standard of greatness exists, and it is not a maximally great being that is being assumed as the standard, then what is being assumed is that a maximally great being does not exist. Why? Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed! If he doesn"t exist though, then he is not possible (if he was possible, then we would exist). Thus, if the standard of greatness the proposition in question assumes is not a maximally great being, then the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" both assumes:

(i) A maximally great being is possible
(ii) A maximally great being is not possible

That is a self-refuting proposition. The only option to avoid this is to posit that a maximally great being is the existing standard that the possibility premise of the Ontological Argument presupposes (Law of Excluded middle). Thus, P2 has to be true or else the Theist is required to admit that the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" is contradictory.

The conclusion follows necessarily.Since the premise of the MOA (possibly x) presupposes the conclusion of it (x exists); it begs the question.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 6:48:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?

Because then he wouldn't be maximally great. Its greater to exist in all worlds, then just one. So, if a maximally great being exists in one, it follows that he exists in all of them.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:00:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 6:48:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?

Because then he wouldn't be maximally great. Its greater to exist in all worlds, then just one. So, if a maximally great being exists in one, it follows that he exists in all of them.

How, though? Wouldn't that only be true if you assume that these possible worlds coexist in some realm? How could God physically exist in worlds that do not exist?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:00:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 6:48:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?

Because then he wouldn't be maximally great. Its greater to exist in all worlds, then just one. So, if a maximally great being exists in one, it follows that he exists in all of them.

That's maximally great in the context of everything that exists. Why can't he be maximally great in the context of one planet? Kind of like how the Roman and Greek gods are maximally great within their realm, but not outside.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:12:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:00:27 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:48:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?

Because then he wouldn't be maximally great. Its greater to exist in all worlds, then just one. So, if a maximally great being exists in one, it follows that he exists in all of them.

That's maximally great in the context of everything that exists. Why can't he be maximally great in the context of one planet? Kind of like how the Roman and Greek gods are maximally great within their realm, but not outside.

Then he wouldn't be maximally great. Maximally would mean to the MAXIMUM.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:16:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:00:13 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:48:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?

Because then he wouldn't be maximally great. Its greater to exist in all worlds, then just one. So, if a maximally great being exists in one, it follows that he exists in all of them.

How, though? Wouldn't that only be true if you assume that these possible worlds coexist in some realm? How could God physically exist in worlds that do not exist?

They are not real worlds (accept for this real world); just possible states of affairs. For example, I went to McDonlds today in the actual world, but in some other possible world I went to Burger King. Now, imagine that a maximally great being exists in some possible world. It would be greater to exist in two than in one, so if we are really discussing a maximally great being, then it would exist in two, if it exists in one. But, three is better than two.... as you see, if he exists in one, he exists in them ALL. However, the real world is a possible world (if it wasn't possible, we wouldn't be here). So if the MGB exists in all possible world, that means it exists in the real world. This is what it means to be MAXIMALLY great.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:19:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:12:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:00:27 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:48:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?

Because then he wouldn't be maximally great. Its greater to exist in all worlds, then just one. So, if a maximally great being exists in one, it follows that he exists in all of them.

That's maximally great in the context of everything that exists. Why can't he be maximally great in the context of one planet? Kind of like how the Roman and Greek gods are maximally great within their realm, but not outside.

Then he wouldn't be maximally great. Maximally would mean to the MAXIMUM.

Maximum requires context though.

If you have a cylinder of water, you can have the maximum density that a hydraulic ram can compress that water to. At the same time, you could (if technology allowed) compress that water to a Planck density, which is the maximum possible density that is physically allowed. Both are maximums in their own respect, but one has a higher density than the other.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:20:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:19:16 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:12:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:00:27 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:48:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?

Because then he wouldn't be maximally great. Its greater to exist in all worlds, then just one. So, if a maximally great being exists in one, it follows that he exists in all of them.

That's maximally great in the context of everything that exists. Why can't he be maximally great in the context of one planet? Kind of like how the Roman and Greek gods are maximally great within their realm, but not outside.

Then he wouldn't be maximally great. Maximally would mean to the MAXIMUM.

Maximum requires context though.

If you have a cylinder of water, you can have the maximum density that a hydraulic ram can compress that water to. At the same time, you could (if technology allowed) compress that water to a Planck density, which is the maximum possible density that is physically allowed. Both are maximums in their own respect, but one has a higher density than the other.

The context would be all possible worlds.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:21:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:20:16 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:19:16 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:12:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:00:27 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:48:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?

Because then he wouldn't be maximally great. Its greater to exist in all worlds, then just one. So, if a maximally great being exists in one, it follows that he exists in all of them.

That's maximally great in the context of everything that exists. Why can't he be maximally great in the context of one planet? Kind of like how the Roman and Greek gods are maximally great within their realm, but not outside.

Then he wouldn't be maximally great. Maximally would mean to the MAXIMUM.

Maximum requires context though.

If you have a cylinder of water, you can have the maximum density that a hydraulic ram can compress that water to. At the same time, you could (if technology allowed) compress that water to a Planck density, which is the maximum possible density that is physically allowed. Both are maximums in their own respect, but one has a higher density than the other.

The context would be all possible worlds.

That context isn't specified in the argument though, so who's to say what the context actually is?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:22:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:21:20 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:20:16 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:19:16 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:12:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:00:27 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:48:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?

Because then he wouldn't be maximally great. Its greater to exist in all worlds, then just one. So, if a maximally great being exists in one, it follows that he exists in all of them.

That's maximally great in the context of everything that exists. Why can't he be maximally great in the context of one planet? Kind of like how the Roman and Greek gods are maximally great within their realm, but not outside.

Then he wouldn't be maximally great. Maximally would mean to the MAXIMUM.

Maximum requires context though.

If you have a cylinder of water, you can have the maximum density that a hydraulic ram can compress that water to. At the same time, you could (if technology allowed) compress that water to a Planck density, which is the maximum possible density that is physically allowed. Both are maximums in their own respect, but one has a higher density than the other.

The context would be all possible worlds.

That context isn't specified in the argument though, so who's to say what the context actually is?

The argument wouldn't work if the context wasn't in all possible worlds.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:24:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:22:50 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:21:20 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:20:16 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:19:16 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:12:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:00:27 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:48:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?

Because then he wouldn't be maximally great. Its greater to exist in all worlds, then just one. So, if a maximally great being exists in one, it follows that he exists in all of them.

That's maximally great in the context of everything that exists. Why can't he be maximally great in the context of one planet? Kind of like how the Roman and Greek gods are maximally great within their realm, but not outside.

Then he wouldn't be maximally great. Maximally would mean to the MAXIMUM.

Maximum requires context though.

If you have a cylinder of water, you can have the maximum density that a hydraulic ram can compress that water to. At the same time, you could (if technology allowed) compress that water to a Planck density, which is the maximum possible density that is physically allowed. Both are maximums in their own respect, but one has a higher density than the other.

The context would be all possible worlds.

That context isn't specified in the argument though, so who's to say what the context actually is?

The argument wouldn't work if the context wasn't in all possible worlds.

Exactly! That's what I am getting at. Since the context isn't specified, I can input any context I want, and make the argument not work.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:25:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:24:04 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:22:50 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:21:20 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:20:16 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:19:16 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:12:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:00:27 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:48:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?

Because then he wouldn't be maximally great. Its greater to exist in all worlds, then just one. So, if a maximally great being exists in one, it follows that he exists in all of them.

That's maximally great in the context of everything that exists. Why can't he be maximally great in the context of one planet? Kind of like how the Roman and Greek gods are maximally great within their realm, but not outside.

Then he wouldn't be maximally great. Maximally would mean to the MAXIMUM.

Maximum requires context though.

If you have a cylinder of water, you can have the maximum density that a hydraulic ram can compress that water to. At the same time, you could (if technology allowed) compress that water to a Planck density, which is the maximum possible density that is physically allowed. Both are maximums in their own respect, but one has a higher density than the other.

The context would be all possible worlds.

That context isn't specified in the argument though, so who's to say what the context actually is?

The argument wouldn't work if the context wasn't in all possible worlds.

Exactly! That's what I am getting at. Since the context isn't specified, I can input any context I want, and make the argument not work.

But then the proponet could just state the context is obviously in all possible worlds.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:27:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:25:44 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:24:04 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:22:50 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:21:20 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:20:16 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:19:16 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:12:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:00:27 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:48:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?

Because then he wouldn't be maximally great. Its greater to exist in all worlds, then just one. So, if a maximally great being exists in one, it follows that he exists in all of them.

That's maximally great in the context of everything that exists. Why can't he be maximally great in the context of one planet? Kind of like how the Roman and Greek gods are maximally great within their realm, but not outside.

Then he wouldn't be maximally great. Maximally would mean to the MAXIMUM.

Maximum requires context though.

If you have a cylinder of water, you can have the maximum density that a hydraulic ram can compress that water to. At the same time, you could (if technology allowed) compress that water to a Planck density, which is the maximum possible density that is physically allowed. Both are maximums in their own respect, but one has a higher density than the other.

The context would be all possible worlds.

That context isn't specified in the argument though, so who's to say what the context actually is?

The argument wouldn't work if the context wasn't in all possible worlds.

Exactly! That's what I am getting at. Since the context isn't specified, I can input any context I want, and make the argument not work.

But then the proponet could just state the context is obviously in all possible worlds.

I would then ask how they know that 'all possible worlds' is the context.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:29:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:27:44 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:25:44 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:24:04 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:22:50 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:21:20 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:20:16 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:19:16 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:12:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:00:27 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:48:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?

Because then he wouldn't be maximally great. Its greater to exist in all worlds, then just one. So, if a maximally great being exists in one, it follows that he exists in all of them.

That's maximally great in the context of everything that exists. Why can't he be maximally great in the context of one planet? Kind of like how the Roman and Greek gods are maximally great within their realm, but not outside.

Then he wouldn't be maximally great. Maximally would mean to the MAXIMUM.

Maximum requires context though.

If you have a cylinder of water, you can have the maximum density that a hydraulic ram can compress that water to. At the same time, you could (if technology allowed) compress that water to a Planck density, which is the maximum possible density that is physically allowed. Both are maximums in their own respect, but one has a higher density than the other.

The context would be all possible worlds.

That context isn't specified in the argument though, so who's to say what the context actually is?

The argument wouldn't work if the context wasn't in all possible worlds.

Exactly! That's what I am getting at. Since the context isn't specified, I can input any context I want, and make the argument not work.

But then the proponet could just state the context is obviously in all possible worlds.

I would then ask how they know that 'all possible worlds' is the context.

Because they're the ones proposing the argument. The OA isn't some unchangeable text that we have debate about what it really means.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 7:32:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:29:43 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:27:44 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:25:44 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:24:04 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:22:50 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:21:20 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:20:16 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:19:16 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:12:32 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:00:27 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:48:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?

Because then he wouldn't be maximally great. Its greater to exist in all worlds, then just one. So, if a maximally great being exists in one, it follows that he exists in all of them.

That's maximally great in the context of everything that exists. Why can't he be maximally great in the context of one planet? Kind of like how the Roman and Greek gods are maximally great within their realm, but not outside.

Then he wouldn't be maximally great. Maximally would mean to the MAXIMUM.

Maximum requires context though.

If you have a cylinder of water, you can have the maximum density that a hydraulic ram can compress that water to. At the same time, you could (if technology allowed) compress that water to a Planck density, which is the maximum possible density that is physically allowed. Both are maximums in their own respect, but one has a higher density than the other.

The context would be all possible worlds.

That context isn't specified in the argument though, so who's to say what the context actually is?

The argument wouldn't work if the context wasn't in all possible worlds.

Exactly! That's what I am getting at. Since the context isn't specified, I can input any context I want, and make the argument not work.

But then the proponet could just state the context is obviously in all possible worlds.

I would then ask how they know that 'all possible worlds' is the context.

Because they're the ones proposing the argument. The OA isn't some unchangeable text that we have debate about what it really means.

Ah, fair enough.

I do suppose that my point still remains that the OA works if and only if the context of 'maximally great' is 'all possible worlds'.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2013 8:37:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 7:16:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 7:00:13 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:48:32 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/20/2013 6:38:58 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world

Why can't a 'maximally great being' exist on only one world?

Because then he wouldn't be maximally great. Its greater to exist in all worlds, then just one. So, if a maximally great being exists in one, it follows that he exists in all of them.

How, though? Wouldn't that only be true if you assume that these possible worlds coexist in some realm? How could God physically exist in worlds that do not exist?

They are not real worlds (accept for this real world); just possible states of affairs. For example, I went to McDonlds today in the actual world, but in some other possible world I went to Burger King. Now, imagine that a maximally great being exists in some possible world. It would be greater to exist in two than in one, so if we are really discussing a maximally great being, then it would exist in two, if it exists in one. But, three is better than two.... as you see, if he exists in one, he exists in them ALL. However, the real world is a possible world (if it wasn't possible, we wouldn't be here). So if the MGB exists in all possible world, that means it exists in the real world. This is what it means to be MAXIMALLY great.

How can the properties of something in one possible world affect the properties of another possible world? The possible realities aren't "open". They cannot interact in any way, since they are wholly different realities. What matters when discussing the properties of a possible world is what exists in that particular world, not what the properties of unrelated worlds are.

Let's say that there are two possible worlds: world A and world B. World A does not have a God, but World B does. Is it not possible for both worlds to be possible, given that if World A was reality, there would be no God, and if B was reality, there would be a God? Only one could be real - and, as such, the unreal could not affect it.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Anti-atheist
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 10:49:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Modal Ontological Argument

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world
P5: A maximally great being exists in the actual world
C: A maximally great being exists

Does The MOA Beg The Question?

P1: The proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a standard of greatness exists
P2: If the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a standard of greatness exists, the standard of greatness the proposition assumes exists is a maximally great being
C: Therefore, the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a maximally great being exists

Defending P1 is easy, as the proposition in question posits possible "greatness". Without a standard of greatness that exists the proposition is meaningless and arbitrary. The proposition self-evidently assumes a standard of greatness (as proponents attribute omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence to greatness).

P2 is true because if the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes a standard of greatness exists, and it is not a maximally great being that is being assumed as the standard, then what is being assumed is that a maximally great being does not exist. Why? Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed! If he doesn"t exist though, then he is not possible (if he was possible, then we would exist). Thus, if the standard of greatness the proposition in question assumes is not a maximally great being, then the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" both assumes:

(i) A maximally great being is possible
(ii) A maximally great being is not possible

That is a self-refuting proposition. The only option to avoid this is to posit that a maximally great being is the existing standard that the possibility premise of the Ontological Argument presupposes (Law of Excluded middle). Thus, P2 has to be true or else the Theist is required to admit that the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" is contradictory.

The conclusion follows necessarily.Since the premise of the MOA (possibly x) presupposes the conclusion of it (x exists); it begs the question.

WTF? The argument is a stupid. a beg question is only if it directly assume conclusionn. This is saying oh yeah it must be great bc great is a standard. THere need be no standard the standard is from human. We see it as great

It fail to consider modal logality for question begging, makign it invalid prim faceah. Modal logic has been disproved anyway which makes the MOA unsound.

Dont make a stupid wit be rat thinker
Anti-atheist

Registered genius
Certified butt-f*cker

imabench for fuhrer '13
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 1:14:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 10:49:13 AM, Anti-atheist wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Modal Ontological Argument

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world
P5: A maximally great being exists in the actual world
C: A maximally great being exists

Does The MOA Beg The Question?

P1: The proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a standard of greatness exists
P2: If the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a standard of greatness exists, the standard of greatness the proposition assumes exists is a maximally great being
C: Therefore, the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a maximally great being exists

Defending P1 is easy, as the proposition in question posits possible "greatness". Without a standard of greatness that exists the proposition is meaningless and arbitrary. The proposition self-evidently assumes a standard of greatness (as proponents attribute omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence to greatness).

P2 is true because if the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes a standard of greatness exists, and it is not a maximally great being that is being assumed as the standard, then what is being assumed is that a maximally great being does not exist. Why? Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed! If he doesn"t exist though, then he is not possible (if he was possible, then we would exist). Thus, if the standard of greatness the proposition in question assumes is not a maximally great being, then the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" both assumes:

(i) A maximally great being is possible
(ii) A maximally great being is not possible

That is a self-refuting proposition. The only option to avoid this is to posit that a maximally great being is the existing standard that the possibility premise of the Ontological Argument presupposes (Law of Excluded middle). Thus, P2 has to be true or else the Theist is required to admit that the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" is contradictory.

The conclusion follows necessarily.Since the premise of the MOA (possibly x) presupposes the conclusion of it (x exists); it begs the question.

WTF? The argument is a stupid. a beg question is only if it directly assume conclusionn.

That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard! Even if it indirectly assumes the conclusion, it still begs the question:

"This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact." [Garner, B.A. (1995). Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Oxford Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Oxford University Press. p. 101]

"Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true." [http://www.nizkor.org...]

So, ya, indirectly assuming the conclusion is still begging the question Idiot.

This is saying oh yeah it must be great bc great is a standard. THere need be no standard the standard is from human. We see it as great

If the standard is from humans, then God cannot exist. If God existed, then he would be the standard of greatness. You obviously didn't read that part where I show why the standard the theist has to assume is God.


It fail to consider modal logality for question begging, makign it invalid prim faceah. Modal logic has been disproved anyway which makes the MOA unsound.

Dont make a stupid wit be rat thinker

Lol You have no clue what you are talking about. You didn't even know that indirectly assuming a conclusion is still begging the question. Fail..
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 1:58:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed!

Could you elaborate this a bit?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 2:36:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 1:58:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed!

Could you elaborate this a bit?

It's pretty self-explanatory. If there is a standard of greatness above God, then God isn't really maximally great. If God was maximally great, he would be the standard of greatness. It is kind of like morality... Christians say that if God exists, then he is the standard by which we measure what is moral or not. Well, if he is maximally great, then he should also be the standard by which we measure what is great or not.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 2:41:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 1:58:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed!

Could you elaborate this a bit?

Thus, if a theist assumes a standard of greatness that is not God; the indirectly admit he doesn't exist. If he did exist, he would be the standard of greatness that has to be assumed. Hopefully, that clears it up.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 2:58:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 2:36:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:58:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed!

Could you elaborate this a bit?

It's pretty self-explanatory. If there is a standard of greatness above God, then God isn't really maximally great. If God was maximally great, he would be the standard of greatness. It is kind of like morality... Christians say that if God exists, then he is the standard by which we measure what is moral or not. Well, if he is maximally great, then he should also be the standard by which we measure what is great or not.

So far as I understand what you're saying, I don't see why that's the case. Can't there be a standard of greatness, which we perceive through reason, and God fulfill this standard? I mean if you have a yardstick of greatness, and God is "as long as" the yardstick, I don't see how it follows that the yard stick is a standard of greatness "above" God, nor how it follows that if he does measure up, he is identical to the "standard of greatness"...

Well that might be a common view of morality, but God doesn't have "moral obligations" in the same way people do. He's not "obliged" to do anything for us, I don't think.

At 11/21/2013 2:41:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:58:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed!

Could you elaborate this a bit?

Thus, if a theist assumes a standard of greatness that is not God; the indirectly admit he doesn't exist. If he did exist, he would be the standard of greatness that has to be assumed. Hopefully, that clears it up.

I think I see what you mean now.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 3:06:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 2:58:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/21/2013 2:36:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:58:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed!

Could you elaborate this a bit?

It's pretty self-explanatory. If there is a standard of greatness above God, then God isn't really maximally great. If God was maximally great, he would be the standard of greatness. It is kind of like morality... Christians say that if God exists, then he is the standard by which we measure what is moral or not. Well, if he is maximally great, then he should also be the standard by which we measure what is great or not.

So far as I understand what you're saying, I don't see why that's the case. Can't there be a standard of greatness, which we perceive through reason, and God fulfill this standard?

Then the theists have to throw out the moral argument. This is because if there can be a on objective standard of greatness regardless of whether God exists, then there should be an objective standard of morality regardless if God exists as well (to avoid special pleading). Thus, either the ontological argument fails, or the moral argument does.

I mean if you have a yardstick of greatness, and God is "as long as" the yardstick, I don't see how it follows that the yard stick is a standard of greatness "above" God, nor how it follows that if he does measure up, he is identical to the "standard of greatness"...

As I said, if you believe there can be a standard of greatness without God's existence, then the same should go for morality as well. Why does God have to be the only standard of morality, but not greatness?


Well that might be a common view of morality, but God doesn't have "moral obligations" in the same way people do. He's not "obliged" to do anything for us, I don't think.

If God exists, then he is the one true objective standard of morality. Why wouldn't greatness be the same? If it isn't, then the Atheist can affirm moral realism without God, as you just admitted there can be external objective standards to him in context.


At 11/21/2013 2:41:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:58:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed!

Could you elaborate this a bit?

Thus, if a theist assumes a standard of greatness that is not God; the indirectly admit he doesn't exist. If he did exist, he would be the standard of greatness that has to be assumed. Hopefully, that clears it up.

I think I see what you mean now.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 3:08:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It just seems to me that if theists assume that if an objective standard of morality exists (as God is the most moral), it has to be grounded in God, then they should also assume that if a standard of greatness exists (as God is the most great), it has to be grounded in God.

If you admit that an objective standard of greatness can exist without God (which doesn't make sense anyway, as greatness would be founded in him necessarily), then why not morality? It seems that a moral standard should exist without him as well.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 3:13:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 2:58:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/21/2013 2:36:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:58:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed!

Could you elaborate this a bit?

It's pretty self-explanatory. If there is a standard of greatness above God, then God isn't really maximally great. If God was maximally great, he would be the standard of greatness. It is kind of like morality... Christians say that if God exists, then he is the standard by which we measure what is moral or not. Well, if he is maximally great, then he should also be the standard by which we measure what is great or not.

So far as I understand what you're saying, I don't see why that's the case. Can't there be a standard of greatness, which we perceive through reason, and God fulfill this standard? I mean if you have a yardstick of greatness, and God is "as long as" the yardstick, I don't see how it follows that the yard stick is a standard of greatness "above" God, nor how it follows that if he does measure up, he is identical to the "standard of greatness"...

Well that might be a common view of morality, but God doesn't have "moral obligations" in the same way people do. He's not "obliged" to do anything for us, I don't think.

At 11/21/2013 2:41:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:58:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed!

Could you elaborate this a bit?

Thus, if a theist assumes a standard of greatness that is not God; the indirectly admit he doesn't exist. If he did exist, he would be the standard of greatness that has to be assumed. Hopefully, that clears it up.

I think I see what you mean now.

Also, even if we perceive a standard of greatness without God, if Theism is true, God still has to ground that standard. If not, then the standard is above God, and he's not really maximally great. If God exists; he sets the standards.
Anti-atheist
Posts: 213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 3:18:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 1:14:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:49:13 AM, Anti-atheist wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Modal Ontological Argument

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world
P5: A maximally great being exists in the actual world
C: A maximally great being exists

Does The MOA Beg The Question?

P1: The proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a standard of greatness exists
P2: If the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a standard of greatness exists, the standard of greatness the proposition assumes exists is a maximally great being
C: Therefore, the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a maximally great being exists

Defending P1 is easy, as the proposition in question posits possible "greatness". Without a standard of greatness that exists the proposition is meaningless and arbitrary. The proposition self-evidently assumes a standard of greatness (as proponents attribute omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence to greatness).

P2 is true because if the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes a standard of greatness exists, and it is not a maximally great being that is being assumed as the standard, then what is being assumed is that a maximally great being does not exist. Why? Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed! If he doesn"t exist though, then he is not possible (if he was possible, then we would exist). Thus, if the standard of greatness the proposition in question assumes is not a maximally great being, then the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" both assumes:

(i) A maximally great being is possible
(ii) A maximally great being is not possible

That is a self-refuting proposition. The only option to avoid this is to posit that a maximally great being is the existing standard that the possibility premise of the Ontological Argument presupposes (Law of Excluded middle). Thus, P2 has to be true or else the Theist is required to admit that the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" is contradictory.

The conclusion follows necessarily.Since the premise of the MOA (possibly x) presupposes the conclusion of it (x exists); it begs the question.

WTF? The argument is a stupid. a beg question is only if it directly assume conclusionn.

That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard! Even if it indirectly assumes the conclusion, it still begs the question:

"This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact." [Garner, B.A. (1995). Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Oxford Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Oxford University Press. p. 101]

"Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true." [http://www.nizkor.org...]

So, ya, indirectly assuming the conclusion is still begging the question Idiot.


Look rat man, dont sit here and tell me to suck d1ck. I know how to suck d1ck. I anint suckin yours, K?

U dont even knoow what indictret means. Beg question only question beg if its indirect of its already direct. B1tch

This is saying oh yeah it must be great bc great is a standard. THere need be no standard the standard is from human. We see it as great

If the standard is from humans, then God cannot exist. If God existed, then he would be the standard of greatness. You obviously didn't read that part where I show why the standard the theist has to assume is God.

Yeah brosif I red it. The srandard is from humans but given BY god. Srisly


It fail to consider modal logality for question begging, makign it invalid prim faceah. Modal logic has been disproved anyway which makes the MOA unsound.

Dont make a stupid wit be rat thinker

Lol You have no clue what you are talking about. You didn't even know that indirectly assuming a conclusion is still begging the question. Fail..

Ha Ratman dont make a stupid
Anti-atheist

Registered genius
Certified butt-f*cker

imabench for fuhrer '13
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 3:18:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 3:06:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/21/2013 2:58:12 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/21/2013 2:36:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:58:51 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed!

Could you elaborate this a bit?

It's pretty self-explanatory. If there is a standard of greatness above God, then God isn't really maximally great. If God was maximally great, he would be the standard of greatness. It is kind of like morality... Christians say that if God exists, then he is the standard by which we measure what is moral or not. Well, if he is maximally great, then he should also be the standard by which we measure what is great or not.

So far as I understand what you're saying, I don't see why that's the case. Can't there be a standard of greatness, which we perceive through reason, and God fulfill this standard?

Then the theists have to throw out the moral argument. This is because if there can be a on objective standard of greatness regardless of whether God exists, then there should be an objective standard of morality regardless if God exists as well (to avoid special pleading). Thus, either the ontological argument fails, or the moral argument does.

Not necessarily. Things may be ontologically good or bad for us, as determined through reason, but don't have moral force unless commanded by a being.


I mean if you have a yardstick of greatness, and God is "as long as" the yardstick, I don't see how it follows that the yard stick is a standard of greatness "above" God, nor how it follows that if he does measure up, he is identical to the "standard of greatness"...

As I said, if you believe there can be a standard of greatness without God's existence, then the same should go for morality as well. Why does God have to be the only standard of morality, but not greatness?


Well, I never really said I thought the moral argument worked... So I might be alright with throwing out the moral argument.


Well that might be a common view of morality, but God doesn't have "moral obligations" in the same way people do. He's not "obliged" to do anything for us, I don't think.

If God exists, then he is the one true objective standard of morality. Why wouldn't greatness be the same? If it isn't, then the Atheist can affirm moral realism without God, as you just admitted there can be external objective standards to him in context.


If God exists, and is the one true standard of morality, does that mean he is perfectly moral in the same way we are? We are moral in the sense that we fulfill our obligations to the moral law... So then God is morally perfect in the sense that he fulfills his obligations?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 3:20:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 3:18:21 PM, Anti-atheist wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:14:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:49:13 AM, Anti-atheist wrote:
At 11/20/2013 11:08:17 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The Modal Ontological Argument

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world
P5: A maximally great being exists in the actual world
C: A maximally great being exists

Does The MOA Beg The Question?

P1: The proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a standard of greatness exists
P2: If the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a standard of greatness exists, the standard of greatness the proposition assumes exists is a maximally great being
C: Therefore, the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a maximally great being exists

Defending P1 is easy, as the proposition in question posits possible "greatness". Without a standard of greatness that exists the proposition is meaningless and arbitrary. The proposition self-evidently assumes a standard of greatness (as proponents attribute omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence to greatness).

P2 is true because if the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes a standard of greatness exists, and it is not a maximally great being that is being assumed as the standard, then what is being assumed is that a maximally great being does not exist. Why? Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed! If he doesn"t exist though, then he is not possible (if he was possible, then we would exist). Thus, if the standard of greatness the proposition in question assumes is not a maximally great being, then the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" both assumes:

(i) A maximally great being is possible
(ii) A maximally great being is not possible

That is a self-refuting proposition. The only option to avoid this is to posit that a maximally great being is the existing standard that the possibility premise of the Ontological Argument presupposes (Law of Excluded middle). Thus, P2 has to be true or else the Theist is required to admit that the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" is contradictory.

The conclusion follows necessarily.Since the premise of the MOA (possibly x) presupposes the conclusion of it (x exists); it begs the question.

WTF? The argument is a stupid. a beg question is only if it directly assume conclusionn.

That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard! Even if it indirectly assumes the conclusion, it still begs the question:

"This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact." [Garner, B.A. (1995). Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Oxford Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Oxford University Press. p. 101]

"Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true." [http://www.nizkor.org...]

So, ya, indirectly assuming the conclusion is still begging the question Idiot.


Look rat man, dont sit here and tell me to suck d1ck. I know how to suck d1ck. I anint suckin yours, K?

U dont even knoow what indictret means. Beg question only question beg if its indirect of its already direct. B1tch

That made no sense you retard. Did your mother drop you on the head as a child? You got pwned.


This is saying oh yeah it must be great bc great is a standard. THere need be no standard the standard is from human. We see it as great

If the standard is from humans, then God cannot exist. If God existed, then he would be the standard of greatness. You obviously didn't read that part where I show why the standard the theist has to assume is God.

Yeah brosif I red it. The srandard is from humans but given BY god. Srisly

If the standard of greatness is given by God, then the premise still assumes God exists. Epic fail...



It fail to consider modal logality for question begging, makign it invalid prim faceah. Modal logic has been disproved anyway which makes the MOA unsound.

Dont make a stupid wit be rat thinker

Lol You have no clue what you are talking about. You didn't even know that indirectly assuming a conclusion is still begging the question. Fail..

Ha Ratman dont make a stupid