The Instigator
Hamza_mazin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

A maximal being can be proved using the ontological argument

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Sonofcharl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 483 times Debate No: 102006
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Hamza_mazin

Pro

The version of the ontological argument I would like to adress in this debate uses the proof by contradiction and it goes as follows:

1- Let's assume that the maximal being -regarding every property that can have a maximum- lacks the property of existence.
2- Then we can conceive a more maximal being that is exactly like the first but has the property of existence.
3- Therfore the maximal being connot lack the property of existence.
4- The maximal being exists.

My oponent should agree for the sake of this argument that existence is a property and is superior to non-existence.
Sonofcharl

Con

Hello.

Ok. I happily agree to agree.

You make no intimation as to the nature of your maximal being. So I will assume nothing.

1. Assumption is merely assumption and does not prove anything.

2. A concept is merely a concept and does not prove anything.

3. Therefore the maximal being is merely an assumption and a concept.

4. The maximal being might or might not exist.

The ontological argument is simply this.

The use of assumption, concept and words, as proof of actuality.

Assumptions, concepts and words alone, cannot prove anything.

Therefore the ontological argument cannot validate the actuality of a maximal being.
Debate Round No. 1
Hamza_mazin

Pro

Thanks for accepting the debate.
My opponent based his refutation of my argument on that ontological arguments, assumptions and concepts cant be used as a proof. I disagree with this assertion and I believe that a concept can be used to make a sound argument to generate conclusions that are related to said concept, for example:
1- We define mammals as the animals that nourish their young with milk (scientist could have used another definition/classification).
2- Lizards do not nourish their young with milk.
3- Therefor Lizards are not mammals (only according to the definition above)
So it seems that as long as you follow right logical steps your conclusions will be inevitably right in relation to your premise.
I would like my opponent to pinpoint in what step exactly I made a mistake.
Sonofcharl

Con

Hello again.

It's a pleasure to debate with you.

1. Please do not be offended by the following statement.

Because you call yourself Hamza-mazin. I have conceived the notion and assumed that you are an Islamic terrorist.

Would it be fair to accept, that my concept and assumption are factual and therefore proof?

No. Because as you rightly state above, concepts and assumptions are at best only "sound arguments" which may lead to a correct conclusion.

But of course they may also lead to an incorrect conclusion.

Proof will only be achieved through subsequently gained, factual and observable evidence or scientific appraisal.

2. A horse is an animal. A lizard is an animal.

Scientific appraisal of these two animals. Has made us aware of specific physiological differences between a horse and a
lizard.

We therefore regard horses and lizards as two separate classes of animalia. Mammal and reptile.

We do not regard them as different by definition. We regard them differently, because it is proved that mammals and reptiles actually have significant physiological differences.

Definition is how we subsequently record and explain these differences.

3. If we follow the "right logical steps". Observation, concept, assumption, theory and scientific appraisal.

Obviously the conclusion will always be right.

And that right conclusion. May substantiate the observation, concept assumption and theory.

But of course the right conclusion might also disprove the observation, concept, assumption and theory.
Debate Round No. 2
Hamza_mazin

Pro

Hello,
Thank you very much for the good debate.
I am aware that I should present arguments for a third stage in this debate, but I do not have any, so I guess my opponent wins.
I myself am against the conclusion of the ontological argument but I wanted to know what logical error does it commit, thus I tried to defend its side, and I am going to share my final thoughts.
Now I have a feeling that using the term (maximal being) in itself begs the question because it already assumes existence as part of it, so assuming that a maximal being does not exist is similar to assuming an existing unicorn does not exist, to which we can reply that there is no such a thing as an (existing unicorn) to begin with, so we connot use this term in the argument, and same goes for the (maximal being).
Sonofcharl

Con

Ok.

Let's leave it at that then.

It's been a pleasure discussing things with you.

Regards.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by QueenDaisy 1 year ago
QueenDaisy
@Pika: No. A rock has the quality of solidness, as do you. Does that make you a rock? You are committing the "affirming the consequent fallacy" by arguing as follows:
1) If it is maximal, it must exist.
2) I exist, therefore I must be maximal.
A implies B does not imply that B implies A.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
If a maximal being has the quality of existence, does that mean I'm a maximal being?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by QueenDaisy 1 year ago
QueenDaisy
Hamza_mazinSonofcharlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither came across as particularly courteous or discourteous. Both made a single grammar or spelling error (so far as I could see). Weirdly, Pro provided the most convincing refutation of their own case- Con got distracted about whether we can know things a priori. Pro convincingly refuted their own case and Con said very little that was relevant to the motion, so I'm giving no points for convincing arguments. Neither side provided sources.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
Hamza_mazinSonofcharlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "I am aware that I should present arguments for a third stage in this debate, but I do not have any, so I guess my opponent wins." - Pro. This is a concession towards Con. Con notes in his argument that the statements of the Ontological Argument are just statements, with no conclusion.