Before I attempt to prove God through logic, I want to make it clear that God is self-evident. Psalm 19:1 states, “The universe declares the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” It doesn’t take complicated mathematics or intellectual superiority to understand who God is. Why? Finding God is more of a heart issue than a mental issue. That being said, let’s talk about how modal logic can help us understand the truth about God’s existence.
Modal Argument for the Existence of God.
1. It is possible that God exists. 2. If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds. 3. If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds. 4. If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world. 5. If God exists in the actual world then God necessarily exists.
First, what does it mean when a philosopher says “possible world?” It means a hypothetical situation and is generally a way to test an idea to see if it’s logical by asking, could it exist in a possible world like our own? However, the one thing that Atheists don’t often understand is how God is defined. Some will say that we are just imagining God into existence, like for instance, a “unicorn.”
One might ridicule the ontological argument by saying: So let’s imagine this mystical being that has one horn and exists. By the above definition, such a being must exist. Therefore, the unicorn exists. Here’s the problem. You are falling into the error of how God is defined. So then, how is God defined differently than a unicorn?
First, there are 3 ways entities are defined: An entity can be impossible, where it exists in no possible worlds. For example, a square circle. This is logically incoherent. Second, an entity can be contingent. That means this entity can exist in some possible world, like a unicorn or Cyclops. The third entity is defined as Necessary, meaning it has to exist in all possible worlds.
Now, what do I mean when I say something necessarily exists in all possible worlds. Examples might include numbers, absolute truths, and shape definitions. There can not exist a square with 3 sides in any possible world because that would be logically incoherent. So, a square must only exist with 4 sides in all possible worlds. Therefore, a necessary entity is something that cannot be false or fail to exist in any possible world.
If God exists, he would have to be a necessary entity because He must exist in all possible worlds. Why? God is defined as a maximally great being, which possesses all qualities that are better to have, such as necessity, in all possible worlds. These properties that exist in the metaphysical realm are properties like love, justice, and goodness. Since we know these entities exist in the actual world, these entities must derive from a necessary being, who we would call God. God is the source for where all these maximally great properties derive from.
Now let’s think back about the way three entities are defined in analytical logic. If God was contingent, like the unicorn (only existing in some dream state), then God would not be a maximally great being since he does not exist in all possible worlds. Therefore, the unicorn example fails premise 3, 4, and 5 because it does not exist in the actual world. It is a contingent entity. However, since God is defined as a maximally great being, then he must exist in all possible worlds to be the greatest conceivable being.
By definition, inserting God into the equation commits no fallacy. What must be done next is for you to debunk premise 1. Premise 1 states that it is possible that God exists. Premise 2-5 is modal logic, which is logically coherent. If premise 1 is true, then premises 2-5 are logically coherent. In order for you to demonstrate that premise 1 is logically incoherent, you must give evidence that it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist.
The most common way this is tried is with the omnipotence paradox. I am sure you have heard of it. It goes like this: “Can God create a stone so heavy that even He can’t move?” If God can not create the stone, then he is not all-powerful, but if God can not move the stone then he is not all-powerful either. Therefore, the idea of God is impossible. However, this is a logical absurdity. Asking, “Can God create a stone so heavy that even He can’t move?” implies that all-powerful is defined as able to do the logically impossible, but this is not consistent with the definition of a being that is omnipotent. It means almighty in power; it doesn’t mean the ability to do everything. God can’t do the logically impossible. He can’t create a square with 3 sides or tell you the shape of purple. All these questions are logically incoherent and can’t exist in any possible world. Since this fails entity 1, the logically impossible, it’s not evidence to demonstrate that premise 1 is logically incoherent.
Other arguments that philosophers have attempted beside this paradox is the problem of evil or the reverse of the ontological argument. Until, and unless Atheists can show the proof for this argument as invalid, it still remains that God is more rational than non-existence.