NOTE: Though I use the word "Ontological argument", I am not referring to the idiotic one made by St. Anselm. His argument is terrible. This argument is much more interesting.A similar argument was put forth by Kurt Godel (Best known for his "Incompleteness theorem" and he was also one of Einstein's best friends), and more recently by Alvin Plantinga.I'll play Devil's Advocate.

Part I: Necessity and Possibility

First, I need to discuss some basic facts about the structure and grammar of logic, which shall comprise "Part I: Necessity and Possibility" (Part II: Maximal Excellence and the argument will come after we can agree upon these premises). The basis of this argument rests on a very counter-intuitive fact of logic, arising from a discipline known as modal logic.Unfortunately, in order to understand this principle, you need to have a basic understanding of symbolic logic.So, let's begin:

Firstly, you should reflect on the fact that if a proposition is not, not true, then it is true. This follows naturally from the idea that a proposition can either be true or false; therefore, if it is not false, then it must be true. Let's call a given proposition "P", and define "P is false" or "Not P" under the symbolic notation "~P". Therefore, our given principle described above is ("=" means "is logically equivalent to"):

Axiom1: ~(~P) = P

Now we begin modal logic. Modal logic deals with propositions about "necessity" and "possibility". For example, if both "If A, then B" and "A is true" are true statements, then it followsnecessarilythat B is also true (i.e.,"B is necessarily true"). Possibility is fairly intuitive; we understand when things are possible or impossible. Symbolically, let's define "M(P)" to mean "Possibly P" (or, "P is possibly true") and "L(P)" to mean "Necessarily P" (or, again, "P is necessarily true").

Secondly, we can reflect on the fact that there is an important relationship between the "necessity" (L) and "possibility" (M). The relationship works like this: "A proposition is necessarily true, if and only if it is not possibly not true." Which corresponds directly to what we believe about necessity --a necessary proposition cannot possibly be false. Or, symbolically:

Axiom2: L(P) = ~M(~P)

And the same analogous statement is true for possibility:

Axiom3: M(P) = ~L(~P)

Or, in English, "A statement is possible, if and only if it is not necessarily false." Or even more simply: "If something isn't definitively false, then it is still open to being true." and "If something isn't possibly any other way, then it must be true."

Take a little while to reflect on those. There's actually a larger logical theory being used here (Known as De Morgan duals, after Augustus De Morgan) but I don't really need to get into that theory in order to proceed. Okay, do you follow this so far? If not, then I suggest you re-read. If yes, then continue along.

So, I only have one more axiomatic proposition for you to consider and reflect on:

"Something is possibly true, if and only if it is necessarily possibly true."EDIT:I give a full proof of this in my second post on this thread.

Which is to say, if something is necessarily possibly true, then obviously it is possibly true. So this statement above is true. And in symbolic logic:

Axiom4: L(M(P)) = M(P)

So, taken all together, let's evaluate a whole different statement.

Theorem 5: M(L(P)) = ~L(~(~M~(P))) = ~L(M(~P)) = ~M(~P) = L(P)

(Convert M into ~L~ on the left, and L into ~M~ on the right. These are true by definition. Then, ~(~Q) = Q, so we get rid of the two ~ in between L and M. Then, LM(Q) = M(Q), so you can get rid of the L. Then this is the same thing as the definition of L(P). QED.)

So, more compactly:

Theorem 5: M(L(P)) = L(P)

In English, "If and only if it is possibly true that P is necessary, then P is necessary." (And obviously, if P is necessary, then P is true)

Are we all on the same page here, ladies and gentlemen? Yes, this is an annoying and strange fact. But it is a fact, I promise.

(By-the-by, this is not the incorrect part of the debate, this is all absolutely, certainly true. There's simply the question of it being incredibly pathological and counter-intuitive, so you will need a while to reflect upon this odd nature of logic)

## Bookmarks