Ontological Argument

Read 9488 times


  • *
  • 4 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Possible worlds do not exist
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2016, 03:16:54 am »
I have heard an objection to the ontological argument.
It goes like this: "possible worlds do not exist".

I said to the atheist that "possible worlds are complete description of the actual world" and I was able to win the debate but how should I have dealt with it?

I showed many things that require possible worlds in order to conclude.
For example this:
"If A and B are different in some possible world, then A and B are not the same thing"

But how can I convince an atheist who says that possible worlds aren't there?
Should I use possible universes?
You could say "possible universe", but the real idea that has to get across is that this is dealing with possible scenarios, that is, worlds which are logically coherent. Thus, to claim that they don't exist would be tantamount to claiming that this universe is impossible, which is a contradiction. Additionally, if this universe is logically possible, then it must exist as some possible world. Thus, any attempt to refute the Modal Ontological Argument without attacking premise 1 is illogical.

One doesn't even need the Modal Perfection Argument to defend Premise 1. One can define the 3 omnis as being with respect to all logically possible things, which would imply that any attempt to refute their existence is illogical, which makes them logically possible for a single object to have them, and additionally, it means that they are logically possible with necessity, since they do not require the logically possible things to actually exist, nor do they require time or anything else. If one tries to inject time contingency, one can cite quantum gravity, which shows that time is an emergent effect of information, but that the being in question is made of information, and thus not contingent on time or space. Thus, you have proof of God instantly in a few very simple steps via S5.