A Maximally Great Being Exists In No Possible World
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
| Started: | 6/9/2012 | Category: | Religion |
| Updated: | 11 months ago | Status: | Post Voting Period |
| Viewed: | 1,291 times | Debate No: | 24201 |
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)
 Pro As Pro, I will be arguing that the existence of God (with "God" being specifically defined as a "maximally great being") is not possible, and exists in no possible world. First round for acceptance.  Con Maximally [1] - "the greatest or most complete or best possible" Great [2] - "remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect" Being [3] - "a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently" My opponent has stated in their opening round that the MGB (or God if we prefer to call it, I'm good either way) "is not possible...in no possible world." This means my opponent must show that it is actually impossible, not just highly unlikely. With definitions and BOP clarified, I'll allow my opponent to make their argument. Thank you [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [3] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... |
 |
|
Pro I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, especially considering the fact that she has such an intimidating win percentage. Regardless, the concept of a maximally great being is internally incoherent for many reasons (I will delve into at least two of these reasons in this debate). In this round specifically however, I will be defending one reason for this conclusion at hand.
Argument From Incoherence P1: It is greater to be perfect than imperfect P2: If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, this being is perfect P3: It is greater to be unlimited than limited. P4: If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, this being is unlimited. P5: If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, this being is perfect and unlimited. P6: If it is possible for a perfect being to exist, this being improves upon its greatness in no possible world. P7: If it is possible for an unlimited being to exist, this being improves upon its greatness in some possible world. P8: There cannot be both no possible world where a maximally great being improves upon its greatness, and some possible world where a maximally great being improves upon its greatness. P9: A maximally great being exists in no possible world. P10: A maximally great being does not exist in the actual world. Support For Premise 1 I believe this premise to be self-evident, and this concept is also strongly accepted by theists who adhere to the Modal Ontological Argument. If I am incorrect about my assumptions, and the first premise of my argument needs continued argumentation, then I am sure that my opponent will let me know that this is the case. Support For Premise 2 If it is greater to be perfect than imperfect, then a maximally great being must be perfect. William Lane Craig (a major proponent of the modal ontological argument) agrees with the obvious notion that a maximally great being would be a perfect being.
Support For Premise 6
Support For Premise 9
Conclusion
like the concept of a married bachelor." William Lane Craig [4]
Con Due to the 5,000 character count, I will focus on one single, albeit, vital flaw with my opponent's reasoning. Since we are arguing Ontological arguments, everything is based on logic and reasoning, rather than observations of the world. As such, sources are not important (since any source would likely just be an appeal to authority and there is no legitimate authority on this topic) [1]. My contention will be with P1 and P2 (and the same can go against P3 and P4, but I only need to show that one has a flaw). My opponent suggests that if the MGB exists, it must be perfect because perfection is greater than imperfection. This sounds accurate at first glance, however we must remember that the definition of maximally is "the greatest or most complete or best POSSIBLE." Therefore, if such level of greatness is not possible, it is not the maximum, and some lower degree of "greatness" will hold the title of "maximally great." To explain in a more mathematical manner, lets take a basic math formula, f(x) = 7 - x^2. The maximum for this equation is f(0) = 7. Of course, we all know that 8 is greater than 7, but 7 is still the maximum for f(x) simply because it is the maximum possible for that formula. This shows conclusively that just because one can imagine something greater, it does not mean that some less great is not the maximally great. Now, to move on to my own argument. Since "maximally" is defined as the greatest possible,then a MGB must be possible. Lets call the set of everything that exists, set E, and everything that is possible, set P. Now, of course, not everything that is possible, does exist. But everything that is possible, is possible by definition [2]. So the greatest within set P will be the MGB, and this thing is possible. While there is the chance that this MGB may not also have a summer home in set E, that is not the point of this debate. I will pass back to my opponent for their next round. Thank you, [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... LOL, yes, I used a source to show that sources are not important. [2] http://www.mathwords.com... |
 |
|
Pro I would like to thank my opponent for her response, however it's not hard to see where she utterly fails in her attempts to refute my argument. Refuting My Opponent's Argument "My opponent suggests that if the MGB exists, it must be perfect because perfection is greater than imperfection. This sounds accurate at first glance, however we must remember that the definition of maximally is "the greatest or most complete or best POSSIBLE." Yes, perfection would be the best possible. This is because, the very essence of perfection is that which cannot be improved upon. If you could improve this perfection in question, then the entity in question is not perfect. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my assumption in this aspect, and it is supported by virtual every proponent of the Ontological Argument. The problem is, the unlimited aspect, this is what makes a maximally great being impossible. "Therefore, if such level of greatness is not possible, it is not the maximum, and some lower degree of "greatness" will hold the title of "maximally great." Any degree lower than perfection, is imperfection. Imperfection is incompatible with the essence of a maximally great being is supposed to be. If this being is any degree lower than perfect, then this being imperfect and thus, we have stopped talking about a maximally great being. Maximally is also defined as "being an upper limit" , which of course clearly contradicts the notion of an unlimited being. Regardless, it doesn't matter what level of greatness this being is at, if this being is at a perfect level of greatness, it cannot be improved upon even if it's level of greatness at an extremely lower level. However, it is greater to be unlimited than limited, and any degree less than unlimited, is limited, thus a maximally great being must be absolutely unlimited (to deny this, is to deny the very support for why this being has the ability to jump from some possible world to every possible world), thus there is no contradiction in this being improving his greatness. This is a direct contradiction to the idea of a maximally great being existing all together however, because a being cannot be both perfect and unlimited but this being must have these qualities in order to have the title of maximally great. If its possible for this being not to be unlimited, then it's possible for this being to only be great enough to occupy almost every possible world (which means, this being doesn't necessarily exist in the actual world). Thus, the theist must accept that a maximally great being is necessarily perfect and unlimited. "lets take a basic math formula, f(x) = 7 - x^2. The maximum for this equation is f(0) = 7. Of course, we all know that 8 is greater than 7, but 7 is still the maximum for f(x) simply because it is the maximum possible for that formula." My opponent's little math equation here was also nothing more than a straw-man that really had nothing to do with my argument. If a being is unlimited, then there is no maximum and it would make sense to go from 7 to 8 if there was no preceding criteria (of course, an unlimited being wouldn't have to follow any criteria). However, if a being is perfect then my opponent would be right, going from 7 to 8 would make no sense if 7 is the best possible. This is why I'm saying a maximally great being is impossible, because the necessary qualities a being must have to be maximally great (being perfect and unlimited) contradict each other. William Lane Craig has said that the only way to falsify the ontological argument is to show that the idea of a maximally great being is incoherent, and I have done this successfully. "Now, to move on to my own argument. Since "maximally" is defined as the greatest possible,then a MGB must be possible." This completely ignores the fact that to be maximally "great" the being must be unlimited, because it is greater to be unlimited than limited, thus in some possible world a being improves it's greatness due to having no limit or "maximum". If this being is unlimited, then any level of greatness is possible, if it wasn't, then this being wouldn't be unlimited. To deny a maximally great being the ability to be unlimited, is to deny him the ability to jump from some possible world to all. An unlimited being is a crucial aspect to the ontological argument as well as perfection. Conclusion Well, it seems my opponent barely scratched the surface of my argument. If the being is perfect, then this being's greatness cannot be logically improved upon (my opponent seems to agree, with her math example illustrating my point). However, if this being is unlimited, it's greatness being improved upon is necessarily possible. Now, if the being is anything less than unlimited, then its possible for a maximally great being to not occupy every possible world. Thus, I have pointed out a clear contradiction in the idea of a maximally great being and my opponent didn't even come close to adequately refuting it I'm afraid. Con First, I thank my opponent for clarifying the word "perfect." There are many different views of the word, ranging from nothing greater is possible, to nothing greater is imaginable. Of course, there is a vast difference between "possible" and "imaginable." Since my opponent has clarified that perfect is only regarding what "could" be greater (meaning "possible"). Of course, with the "maximally" qualifier, this is redundant, but either way. Now to move on to the continuation of the argument. If we go back to my R2, I said, "the same can go against P3 and P4," so lets go into that. A maximally great being is only as great as is possible (because of the definition of maximally). Therefore, a maximally great being is only as unlimited as possible, but not necessarily absolutely unlimited. Because the MGB is not absolutely unlimited, it can still have limits. It is easy enough to see that absolute unlimitedness is not logical. It would require one to have an unlimited net positives and, at the same time, have unlimited net negatives. So again, since absolute unlimitedness is not possible, it does not fit within "maximally great." Thanks to the qualifier "maximal" that is in MGB, we can replace "perfect" with "most perfect possble" and replace "unlimited" with "most unlimited possible." Since both options fall under the set of possible, then the MGB itself is possible. Since the definitions of the words dictate "possible" I will let this end and move into our final round. Again, I thank my opponent. |
 |
|
Pro Rebutting My Opponent
"Of course, there is a vast difference between "possible" and "imaginable."" I would disagree to a certain extent. A sphere is the most round object anyone can imagine but it is also the most round object possible. Also, a perfectly round square is unimaginable and it is also impossible. Thus, to act like what can be imagined and what is "possible" is mutually exclusive, seems to be an error on the behalf of my opponent. If something is imaginable (assuming there are no internal contradictions involved) then it is "possible" in some context. "A maximally great being is only as great as is possible (because of the definition of maximally). Therefore, a maximally great being is only as unlimited as possible, but not necessarily absolutely unlimited. Because the MGB is not absolutely unlimited, it can still have limits." This is of course, absurd. A being with limits, is by definition, limited. The idea of a being who is as unlimited as possible but still has limits is extremely incoherent because if a being has limits, we are talking about a limited being and not an unlimited being because unlimited is defined as "without limits". Even a being with one limit (assuming no contradictions), is by definition a limited being. Since anything less than unlimited, is limited (as I already explained earlier), then we can dismiss my opponent's argument here. "It is easy enough to see that absolute unlimitedness is not logical. It would require one to have an unlimited net positives and, at the same time, have unlimited net negatives. So again, since absolute unlimitedness is not possible, it does not fit within "maximally great." Obviously by unlimited, this means unlimited in regards to all qualities which don't contradict eacht other. As I already stated, if it can be imagined and it has no contradictions, then it is "possible" in some context. As far as "possibility" is concerned in general, there seems to be some confusion. "Thanks to the qualifier "maximal" that is in MGB, we can replace "perfect" with "most perfect possible" and replace "unlimited" with "most unlimited possible." Since both options fall under the set of possible, then the MGB itself is possible." I think there is some equivocation going on with the word "possible". Lets say I have two dice in my hand and you don't know how many sides each one has. There is no logical contradiction based on this information that if I rolled these two dice, I could roll an 18, thus, rolling an 18 is "possible". However, what if there were just regular 6 sided dice in reality? This means that the highest number that can be rolled is 12 in reality, thus rolling an 18 would be impossible. Basically, something could be "possible" simply based on lack of knowledge of it's negation. In reality, the highest possible roll using these two dice is a 12, however, due to lack of knowledge it was magically "possible" that I could roll an 18. So my opponent needs to enforce which type of "possible" she is referring to in her rebuttals. "Since the definitions of the words dictate "possible" I will let this end and move into our final round." Again, my opponent needs to explain what she means by "possible". Something could be "possible" due to lack of knowledge of it's negation, when it reality it's impossible (like rolling an 18 with two dice is "possible" if you don't know how many sides the dice has). Or, something could be actually possible based on knowledge of all possible outcomes in reality (we know the exact range of the dice, 1 - 12, thus rolling a 12 is actually possible). Continuing My Case We can still assume my opponent's definitions, however here is a common definition of maximally: "max·i·mally An element in an ordered set that is followed by no other[1] If it's possible for a maximally great being to exist, he is neccessarily the element of an ordered set of greatness that can be follwed by no other in greatness. Thus, there exists greatness that cannot be followed by more greatness if a maximally great being exists (thus, limit to greatness would exist).
However, a being who exists in 2 possible worlds is greater than a being who exists in only 1, and a being who exists in 3 possible worlds is greater than a being who exists only in 2 ect... There can always be more greatness without a limit when dealing with occupying and unlimited amount of possible worlds. This means that for a being to occupy an unlimited (potentially infinite) amount of possible worlds, there must necessarily be no limit to greatness, and greatness necessarily always has to have the ability to be followed by more greatness. Hence the contradiction. Conclusion The debate boils down to: "Can a being be maximally great, if he is not great enough to occupy every possible world?" If the answer is "yes" then the debate seems to be leaning in my opponent's favor. If the the answer is "no" then this debate seems to be leaning in my favor. Source [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... Con Well, this is the final round and traditionally, no new arguments are allowed, because it would be unfair to my opponent since they could not respond to them. However, since my opponent did bring up new arguments, I am forced to address them. So I shall address some of them (but keep it short) and then summarize the debate, before passing on to the voters. The important thing to note is that, while in R3, my opponent concluded that "Perfect" was limited to what is possible in that it only applies to what is possible to improve. However, in R4, my opponent holds that "unlimited" is absolutely unlimited (which I shall shorten to "AU" from now on). Because of this, my opponent must concede his P4 from his R2 "If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist, this being is unlimited." This is because, as I have said from the beginning, "maximally" means "the greatest or most complete or best possible" and since AU is not possible, it is not part of the MGB. QED. My opponent makes two attempts to refute this and I will address them here. 1) "due to lack of knowledge it was magically possible" This is an equivilcation fallacy and an appeal to ignorance. For one, if we apply this absurd view of "possible" to my opponent's original argument, then we can simply say that a lack of knowledge makes the MGB possible and therefore, my opponent is wrong, a MGB is possible because I am ignorant. Now, the voters can either accept this argument by my opponent, in which case, I am right and they need to vote for me because PRO's own argument can be used against him. Or they can reject his argument and accept mine. So, either way, it does not support my opponent. 2) " however here is a common definition of maximally" First, I would like to state how poor it is that for this entire debate, my opponent did not question the definition even once, then in the last round he simply brings forth a completely different definition and asks us to accept it. Again, this is up to the voters. I encourage, out of proper conduct, not to accept this. However, if you wish only to dock conduct and allow the definition to stand as far as arguments go, then lets look a little closer, namely, at his source [1]. If you actually open the link and take a look, you'll see that the definition he provided is NOWHERE in his source. However, what is in his source is this, "being an upper limit." Yes, his only link supports that "maximally" cannot be unlimited, again, striking down his P4 from his R2 and proving his own argument wrong. QED. So, since my opponent's own arguments are actually striking down his initial "proof" there is nothing left to do but vote. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... I thank my opponent for this debate, and all the viewers who have taken the time to read, comment, and vote. Again, thank you. |
 |
Post a Comment
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 12 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 11 months ago
Report this Comment
Posted by Khana 11 months ago
Report this Comment
« Prev12
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Reason_Alliance 11 months ago
| Rational_Thinker9119 | Ore_Ele | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - |  | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Reasons for voting decision: <--
Vote Placed by KRFournier 11 months ago
| Rational_Thinker9119 | Ore_Ele | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con reduced Pro's notion of "unlimited" to absurdity, showing that such a use of that term is inherently meaningless. Pro also needs to verify his formatting before submitting rounds.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 11 months ago
| Rational_Thinker9119 | Ore_Ele | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments