The Instigator
Topaet
Pro (for)
The Contender
JimShady
Con (against)

Debate me on one of these topics

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Topaet has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 623 times Debate No: 104224
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Topaet

Pro

If you want to debate me on one of the following topics, choose the topic (or topics) and write it/them in the comments.

Debate topic - my position on the topic
1. Homosexuality is natural - Pro
2. The cosmological arguments for the existence of God are sound - Con
3. The teleological argument for the existence of God is sound - Con
4. The ontological argument for the existence of God is sound - Con
5. The Bible contains no errors - Con
6. Young Earth creationism is true - Con
JimShady

Con

I accept this debate and choose to take the Pro position on #4, the ontological argument for the existence of God is sound.
Debate Round No. 1
Topaet

Pro

Since my opponent did not choose an ontological argument, I will:

Anselm’s ontological argument:

1: It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality, is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a
contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
C1. Therefore, God exists.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objection 1 (reductio ad absurdum [1]):

If the premises of Anselm’s ontological argument are taken as true then it necessarily will lead to absurd conclusions:

1. It is a conceptual truth that a piland is an island than which none greater can be
imagined (that is, the greatest possible island that can be imagined).
2. A piland exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A piland that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a piland
that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if a piland exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine an
island that is greater than a piland (that is, a greatest possible island that does
exist).
5. But we cannot imagine an island that is greater than a piland.
6. Therefore, a piland exists.

Thus the argument becomes invalid.

Objection 2 Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) objection to Premise 3:

[Premise 3: A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality, is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind]

P1: A predicate is something that adds to the essence of a thing.

P2: A non-existing flower is just as beautiful as an existing flower.

C1: Existence is not a predicate.

P3: If existence is not a predicate, it can’t be a perfection.

C2: God can be defined as perfect whether he exists or not.

C3: A being that exists is not greater than a being that does not exist.

So, Anselm’s P3 can be rejected and P4 also has to be rejected and since the conclusion does not follow from the premises anymore the argument becomes a Non-sequitur [2] and thus invalid.

[1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[2]: https://www.vocabulary.com...

JimShady

Con

Since my opponent, in the first round, said "the ontological argument", I assumed he condensed all of the ontological arguments into one generalized argument. But if you want to talk Anselm's, that's fine, it was going to be my original choice.

Objection 1 rebuttal:

I have heard this rejection countless times, and I have given a sound response to it every time. There is one problem with it: an island than which none greater can be imagined is inconceivable. Nothing can be infinitely great or the greater than God. Infinite greatness entitles perfectness, and nothing can be truly perfect but God.

Now, if the island actually was THE greatest, then, being the greatest means that the island is actually God himself. Part of being the greatest island is that this island is so great that it can and is God. My point is, picturing something besides God as immeasurably great is impossible, as nothing is "the greatest" without being God.

Objection 2:

I will offer responses to each of Kant's premises and conclusions.

P1: I agree with this.
P2: I disagree with this. Thinking of a beautiful flower and actually experiencing one is different. Similarly, a non-existing, tasty apple is not as tasty as an existing apple, because one can actually be tasted.
C1: Because of this, C1 is wrong. Existence adds essence, because without existence, essence cannot be felt.
P3: So, I disagree with P3. Existence, because it is a predicate that adds essence to something, can be considered a perfection.
C2: I agree with this.
C3: I disagree, because existing is necessary to be great.

Kant's argument falls flat on P2, making the whole argument defective. Existence is needed to experience something to its fullest extent, and thus P2 is incorrect. Existence thus adds essence.

I'd also like you to note that existence is defined as a verb (synonymous to predicate) in almost every dictionary. Thus, you are contradicting the widely used definition of a word and using semantics as a combatant for your argument.
https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JimShady 9 months ago
JimShady
Oh, okay. You wanna restart it?
Posted by Topaet 9 months ago
Topaet
My apologies, I had a nasty "unexpected error" for a few days, and couldn't post to any of my debates.
Posted by JimShady 9 months ago
JimShady
What the heck, man.
Posted by canis 9 months ago
canis
The next step would be consequence..You will find none....
Posted by canis 9 months ago
canis
1. Homosexuality is natural - Pro
Yep. Like hetero is natural for heteros.
2. The cosmological arguments for the existence of God are sound - Con
No. i your mind you would have to create a god first. otherwise it makes no sense at all.
3. The teleological argument for the existence of God is sound - Con
you would have to create theologcal arguments for a god you created..
4. The ontological argument for the existence of God is sound - Con
Do not know what ontologi means. but if 2 and 3 are creatiuons..4 would probably not make sense..
5. The Bible contains no errors - Con
There is no original bible; ( so there is actually non)..So the bible we have is what "we" wanted it to be at the moment is was created.
6. Young Earth creationism is true - Con
According to what...No science..No bible...
Posted by Throwback 9 months ago
Throwback
I would really like to see the right opponent take this debate. The facts (there are facts outside science!) are in favor of the opponent who is skilled enough to present them. All the atheist has against God are his particular instances of lack of evidence. Evidence in general points to him losing the argument.
Posted by JimShady 9 months ago
JimShady
Hello, I'd like to debate the ontological argument with you. I believe that it is sound.
Posted by Topaet 9 months ago
Topaet
That it happens in nature.
Posted by The_Terrortuth 9 months ago
The_Terrortuth
What do you mean with "natural"? In plato-aristotelian terms or in the sense that it happens in nature?
Posted by KostasT.1526 9 months ago
KostasT.1526
I was going to accept but I do not match the criteria.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.