All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

# God does not exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
KingDebater
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 2/26/2013 Category: Philosophy Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 558 times Debate No: 30716
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 Pro I'll be arguing that God does not exist. My opponent will be arguing that God does exist. StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Opening argumentsRound 3/4/5 - RebuttalsRules 1 - No trolling.2 - The burden of proof is shared.Definitions God - A maximally great being who created the universe. Report this Argument Con StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Opening argumentsRound 3/4/5 - RebuttalsRules 1 - No trolling.2 - The burden of proof is shared.I accept. Report this Argument Pro #1: The argument from Quantity(P1) Maximal greatness is a Quantity.(P2) You can always add to a quantity;(C) Therefore, maximal greatness cannot exist in reality, as we can always imagine something greater.P1 What is a quantity, as Wikipedia explains, a quantity is a property that can exist as a magnitude or multitude. Quantities can be compared in terms of "more", "less" or "equal", or by assigning a numerical value in terms of a unit of measurement [1]. I think it's obvious that maximal greatness is a quantity. P2 We can assign every being a number to give us an idea of how great that being is. We could contemplate the concept of a being that is only great enough to have the number 1 assigned to it. We can now imagine something that's greater, as we can imagine a being great enough to have the number 2 assigned to it. We can keep on imagining something greater forever, since numbers go on forever.CThe logical conclusion following premise 1 and premise 2. Maximal greatness cannot exist in reality as no matter what number we assign to it, we can always imagine a creature that is great enough to have a number that is one more assigned to it. What number would we assign to maximal greatness? You can't say infinity, as infinity isn't a number. You can't count to infinity.#2: The argument from Non-Cognitivism (P1) There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being: A. Primary Attributes - The basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existent’s primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified.B. Secondary Attributes - Character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise.C. Relational Attributes - What we associate with the character. For example, in the case of President Obama, the fact that he is the President of the United States is an example of a relational attribute.(P2) B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.(P3) The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.(P4) Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)(P5) However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.(P6) Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless; (From 3, 4, 5)(C) Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.I'm interested to hear Con's response.Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...Report this Argument Con Consummator forfeited this round. Pro Extend all arguments.Report this Argument Con Consummator forfeited this round. Pro It looks like Consummator's account was closed. No debate for me then.Extend all arguments. Report this Argument Con Consummator forfeited this round. Pro The end.Report this Argument Con Consummator forfeited this round.
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
Pro plagiarized his first argument from my recent debate on the Ontological Argument (my opponent made that argument), leading me to believe he probably plagiarized his second argument, too.
Posted by Avamys 5 years ago
I'm surprised Wikipedia was used as a source. It's something anyone can edit, so it is not as reliable as other things such as dictionaries and research papers.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
© 2018 Debate.org. All rights reserved.