The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Commondebator
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God more than likely does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 72095
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

The Debate

I as Pro will seek to provide argument to support the proposition that God (as defined) does not exist is more likely true than false.

Con will at the minimum seek to negate Pros arguments.

Definitions

God - An omniscient, omnipotent, loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being.

Rules

No new arguments to be presented in the last round.

First round is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in the first round.

Any questions or problems ? Feel free to bring them up in the comments section before accepting the debate so we can have a chance to reach agreement before starting the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Opening remarks

I thank Commondebator now referred to as the Con for accepting this debate and look forward to what is hopefully a thought provoking & entertaining debate.

You can't prove that God (or the demon in front of your screen) doesn't exist.

What if I said there was a demon in between the screen your reading for this debate and yourself, would you believe it ? could you disprove it ? Now maybe you try to prove that a demon isn't there, you don't see it therefore that proves it is not there. Well I point out that's because it is invisible. Perhaps you get some high tech equipment and once again detect no such demon, but I claim, well that's because the demon is really good at avoiding human detection (sneaky little bugger).

It goes on and on like this, no matter what you try I will always have a rationalization (read: excuse) to save the demon from being proved to not exist.

Never the less we can be justified that it is at least more likely such a demon does not exist because......

1) No good reason to believe the demon exists there in the first place
2) Absence of evidence where we would expect such absence of evidence if the thing did not exist
3) The more and more rationalizations (without justification) that are needed to save the demon propositions from being falsified.

Likewise I will argue that we are justified to believe that God as defined more likely does not exist in part for those same in principle justifications.

A general concept of God vs a more specific concept of God (as defined in this debate)

Even if it was proven that at least God exists in at least some GENERALIZED way as a supernatural person think about all the possibilities that fall under such a generalization for example...........

God - Very powerful (but not all powerful), all knowing, loving, most of the time morally good (but not always)
God - All powerful, knows almost everything (but not everything), some times loving, sometimes cruel, sometimes indifferent.
God - Very powerful, knows some things, doesn't know others, sometimes unjust.
God - All powerful, All knowing, unloving, just.
God - (insert any and all combinations here)

As such anyone who wants to claim that God exists and that God is - An omniscient, omnipotent, loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being without justification becomes more and more likely to not exist due to it's more and more specificity.

This is my first argument in support of the proposition that God (as defined) is more likely to not exist.

Occams Razor

Any inaction on Gods part is compatible with the claim that God exists and God choose not to act. But such inaction on Gods part is also compatible with the claim God does not exist and thus did not act.

Occams razors is explained as follows...""Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 " 1347), and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected." [1]

All things being equal occams razor enjoins us to go with the proposition that God does not exist in light of Gods inaction.

Divine Silence Part 1) God neither confirms nor denies

Chances are you have already encountered in your life time assertions about what God wants. Whether it be keeping slaves, denying same sex marriage, stoning homosexuals to death, denying contraception, denying women to drive, forcing women to cover up nearly all of their body, the torture/killing of heretics/non believers etc etc all of this and more has being justified on the basis of being the will of God and failure to comply puts one at risk of divine punishment, either in this life or the next.

This is serious, in some cases this can be a matter of life and death.

Your fellow human beings are quite free to pronounce loudly & often what God wants taking comfort in the knowledge that God will not contradict them and as such are free to exploit such a fact of this world.

Such divine silence is what we would expect if such a God did not exist. As such I submit this as another reason to support that it is more likely that God does not exist.

Divine Silence Part 2) Lack of comfort and understanding in time of need

A loving father will seek to comfort their child if they must go through some painful medical treatment. If they can't make the child understand they will at least seek to comfort the child.

Many people like holocaust survivors have reported an absence of Gods comfort,presence or understanding when going through such horror.

This is what we would expect to be the case if God did not exist.

Prayer healing has not being shown to work.

There are heaps of people who will testify that they prayed to God, and God responded to that prayer by healing them, from that itchy spot on the back of their neck to stage 4 lung cancer and everything in between, But this on it's own is just confirmation bias [2]

No one can show (even with all the incentive in the world to do so, cause they want to justify they have the right religious belief/God) that praying to their God, or to God in a particular way is any more effective than praying to a light bulb.

This is what we would expect to be the case if God did not exist.

God & the best possible world (or not)

Consider the following argument....

1) If God exists then we live in the best possible world
2) More likely we don't live in the best possible world
C) Therefore more likely God does not exist

Wikipedia explains Leibniz reasoning as such... "Leibniz' solution casts God as a kind of "optimizer" of the collection of all original possibilities: Since He is good and omnipotent, and since He chose this world out of all possibilities, this world must be good"in fact, this world is the best of all possible worlds." [3]

Yes you can assume that God exists and therefore the world we live in must be the best possible world, but that is just begging the question for the existence of God in the first place and not questioning if we live in the best possible world.

Consider a (rough) fact pointed out by Sam Harris..."9 million children die every year before they reach the age of five...That's 24 thousand a day, a thousand an hour 17 or so a minute. That means before I can get to the end of this sentence some few children likely will have died in terror and agony" [4]

You can retreat to the mere possibility, but what about plausibility and reasonableness. Is it plausible and or reasonable too believe that we live in the best possible world ? I submit that it is not.

As such since it is more likely that we DON'T live in the best possible world ergo it is more likely that God does not exist.

Moral paralysis

If God exists then unnecessary suffering does NOT exist because any and all suffering only happens if and only if God permits it. Also the suffering that God permits only happens if it is necessary to achieve a greater good.

If we did believe that all suffering was necessary for achieving a greater good it would lead to moral paralysis as we would not seek to prevent suffering least we prevent the greater good that was dependent on said suffering.

Every time we stop or seek to prevent some suffering like stopping a child rape or giving medical treatment we do so on the assumption that such suffering is unnecessary and thus our acts that do or seek to stop such instances of suffering have not come at the cost or will not come at the cost of preventing a greater good.

But this only makes sense if you operate on the presupposition that unnecessary suffering does exist and thus God does not.

I look forward to Cons reply.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] https://www.youtube.com...
Commondebator

Con

As a brief introduction to my opponent and the readers, my argument will be dependent of the ontological argument. This argument is a collection of arguments by philosophers and is heavily regarded upon philosophy and logic. You can say that the argument will almost be like a cited study (of coarse, it is not really a study however we can use the analogy for now). My defenses, interpretation, reasoning and rebuttals will be from me. Please do keep in mind I cannot site my own interpretation, rebuttal, and logical thinking as it is coming from me. I wish my opponent best of luck!

The Ontological argument
For a little history, the ontological argument was created by Anselm of Canterbury, Ren" Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz and other philosophers. The traditional definition of an ontological argument was given by Immanuel Kant. This argument is for the existence of God that uses ontology. Many arguments fall under the category of the ontological, and they tend to involve arguments about the state of being or existing. So, I will put forth my argument using the ontological argument to defend my stance for god.

C.1 For ontological argument-Anselm"s logic

In chapter two of the ontological argument, his logic can be summarized like so:

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.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

Defense of 1-3: God is the highest power imaginable and it is conceptual truth that no higher power can be imagined. However, a being that exists as an idea and in reality is equal to a being that exists as any other idea. If this idea is in our mind, then it is in reality.
Defense of 4-6: If god is equal to any other ideas, then we can imagine something greater than god because we can imagine higher ideas. However, imagining something higher than god is a contradiction to number 1.

Since number 1 is a conceptual truth, we cannot imagine something greater than god since it is the highest being that can be imagined. Therefore, if we can conceive of a being than which nothing greater can be conceived, it must exist in reality. Thus, a being than which nothing greater could be conceived, which Anselm defined as God, must exist in reality

Furthermore, Anselm further elaborates his logic (which to me) is in a more simpler way.

1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, 4.then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
5.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
7.God exists in the mind as an idea.
8.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality

Defense of 1-4: God is something that nothing else can be imagined. So, a being that exists in reality is greater than one does not necessarily exist. God does not necessarily exist in reality, therefore we can imagine something greater than god.
Defense of 5-8: However, imagining something greater than god is a contradiction to god itself, therefore we cannot imagine something greater than god.Then, if god exists as an idea in the mind, as an idea, then god exists in reality.

C.2 of the Ontological argument-Mulla Sadra"s logic
Sadra put forward a new argument, known as Argument of the Righteous. The argument attempts to prove the existence of God through the reality of existence, and to conclude with God's pre-eternal necessity. Her logic can be summarized like so:

1.There is existence
2.Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived
3.God is perfection and perfection in existence
4.Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism
5.That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism).
6.That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence.
7.Hence God exists.

Defense of 1-3: If there is existence it is perfect and above which no perfection can be conceived. The existence that we have is perfect at that state. My personal interpretation is that there is nothing to compare tbe of state "x" of the universe because state "x" is perfect at being state "x" . There cannot be a more perfect state, because there is nothing to compare it to, and it is at its perfect state already.
Defense of 4-7: The existence is singular and there is no metaphysical pluralism of that state of existence. If we were to measure the perfection of that state on a scale, there must be a limit or a point of greatest intensity of perfection and of greatest existence. Since there is no metaphysical pluralism (described in my previous defense) perfection exists, therefore god exists.

C.3 of the Ontological argument-Alvin Planting and William Lane Craig"s view
William Lane Craig"s view modifies Alvin Plantinga's alternative in a slightly different way. His logic follows:

1.It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2.If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3.If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4.If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5.If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6.Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Defense of 1-3: It is possible that god exists since he does not contradict any laws of physics. Therefore, if a possible god exists, then he exists in some possible world. If an all powerful being exists on some possible world, then he exists in every single possible world because he is eternal.
Defense of 4-6: Since god exists on every possible world, then he exists in the actual world, because he exists in all possible world. Every single world in the universe is possible, therefore god exists in the real world. If god exists in the real world, then he exists on every single world. Therefore god exists.

I will do rebuttals in the following round. Unfortunately, I do not have enough character space to properly preform a rebuttal. Best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank CommonDebator for their opening arguments.

With Cons first round obviously they seek to establish a case for the existence of God and did not argue against my previous arguments, as such extend those arguments.

St Anselm Ontological argument

Consider where Con states..."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." & "Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality,"

Existence is not a predicate

My first argument is the objection raised by Kant that existence is not a predicate, this is explained as such..."existence is not a property that objects possess or lack, but a correspondence between a concept and the world, then this is comparison is illicit. For in that case, God existing is a matter of the concept of God being exemplified, and God not existing is a matter of the concept of God not being exemplified. In both cases, though, the concept of God that either is or is not exemplified is exactly the same.

The comparison on which the ontological argument rests is therefore a comparison between two identical concepts of God, one exemplified, and the other not. As these two concepts of God are identical, they cannot be contrasted, and so no conclusion can be drawn from any such contrast. The ontological argument therefore fails, because its assumption that an existent God is greater than a non-existent God is false; the two are equal in greatness, because they are identical. [1]

Conceptions/what is imagined does not necessarily correspond to reality

Recall how Con claims..."6.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality."

Consider the following 2 claims....

X is imagined
X is imagined to be the greatest conceivable X

Just because something can be imagined does that mean it ACTUALLY exists ? of course not. But what if we take anything and everything and claim that it is the "greatest conceivable", does this addition now justify that that thing exists ? No.

To put it more directly the conception of the greatest conceivable being that exists in both mind and reality is it's self a conception and thus like all conceptions does not necessarily correspond to reality.

Greatest conceivable being & the mind

Consider where Con states..."1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined."

But can the greatest conceivable being exist in the mind ? Thomas Aquinas didn't think so..."He (Aquinas) suggested that people cannot know the nature of God and, therefore, cannot conceive of God in the way Anselm proposed. The ontological argument would be meaningful only to someone who understands the essence of God completely. Aquinas reasoned that, as only God can completely know His essence, only He could use the argument. His rejection of the ontological argument caused other Catholic theologians to also reject the argument" [2]

William Craig's Ontological argument

It is possible a maximally great being does not exist

Consider Cons first premise here..."1.It is possible that a maximally great being exists."

But this argument also works starting with a different premise, that being 1) It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist

1.It is possible that a maximally great being does NOT exist
2.If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.
3.If a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in every possible world.
4.If a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world.
5.If a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exist.
6.Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.

Exists in all posible worlds vs Does not exist in all possible worlds

To say that it is possible for X to exist also entails that it is possible for X not exist. Eg It is possible a unicorn exists entails it is possible that a unicorn does not exist.

X exists in every possible world = there is no possible world where X does not exist.

Now consider the following premises...

1.It is possible that a maximally great being exists. (Therefore there is a possible world where a maximally great being does not exist)

&

4.If a maximally great being exists in every possible world,(therefore there is no possible world where it does not exist) then it exists in the actual world.

Either something exists in all possible worlds or it doesn't, it can't be both, thus 1 & 4 contradict each other thus the argument has an internal contradiction to it.

Necessarily true or necessary existence can be used to justify anything

It might be claimed that a maximally great being is a necessarily true proposition or that a maximally great being exists necessarily.

But this kind of reasoning can be used on other things too, like a maximal unicorn. A maximal unicorn exists is a necessarily true proposition and/or a maximal unicorn exists necessarily.

A common retort that that such a maximal unicorn is physical, but presumably the maximal great being is not physical thus why can't we have a maximal unicorn or something other maximal thing and justify it using the same kind of reasoning.

Also recall the objection raised by Kant that existence is not a predicate, this likewise applies to necessary existence.

Modal realism has not being justified

Consider the premise that states..."4.If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world."

Now consider an explanation of modal realism..."Modal realism is the view propounded by David Kellogg Lewis that all possible worlds are as real as the actual world. It is based on the following tenets: possible worlds exist; possible worlds are not different in kind from the actual world; possible worlds are irreducible entities; the term actual in actual world is indexical, i.e. any subject can declare their world to be the actual one, much as they label the place they are "here" and the time they are "now"" [3]

A possible world is just as real as an ACTUAL WORLD ? This is extremely contentious, until modal realism is justified even if we grant that something exists in all "possible worlds" does not necessarily mean that it exists means in "the actual world". The argument can be formulated as follows.......

1) The actual world is real
2) A possible world is not necessarily real
3) (Assume) X exists in all possible worlds
C) Therefore X does not necessarily exist in the actual world

Ontological argument-Mulla Sadra"s logic

I am not as familiar with this ontological argument as I am with the others, so rather than present a counter argument I seek some definitions and clarification.

"1.There is existence"

Does existence here mean the sum total of all things that exist ?

"2.Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived"

Define and elaboration on perfection

"3.God is perfection and perfection in existence"

What does it mean to say perfection in existence ? All things in existence are perfect ?

"4.Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism"

Is this because existence here is understood to be the sum total of all things that exist ?

I look forward to Cons reply.

Sources

[1] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Commondebator

Con

Commondebator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Extend arguments from previous rounds.
Commondebator

Con

Many apologies for the previous forfeit Pro. I shall post my rebuttals from both rounds in this round if the word limit allows. I hope the voters will only mark me conduct, and I thank my opponent for extending his argument.

R.1 You can’t prove god does not exist...?
Apparently my opponent states that the disability to disprove something dictates if something exists. This is obviously false. Existence is not limited to what humans can perceive, and although I can understand if this is a weak excuse for an existence, it holds true. Therefore, the idea that the disability to disprove something solely judges existence is well. . .false, because it is plausible that there are things that exists, however we cannot perceive them. Does it mean that they do not exist? No. Which is why, my opponent’s argument falls.

My opponent also states that the absence of evidence is another reason why god does not exist. Since when did existence have to rely on quantifiable evidence?

R.2 Morality, Prayer, Divine silence
So, my opponent’s argument can be simplified to...

-God knows of “x”
-”x” is considered to be immoral
-God is immoral

OR

-God does not know of “x”
-”x” is considered to be immoral
-God is not immoral
-However, god is not omniscient

These two simplified premises are supposed to disprove god. Assuming my opponent describes god as unjust because of unjust things in the world, is false. This argument falls nicely with divine silence argument. You see, you cannot reach to a conclusion that god does not exist just because of unjust things in the world. Simply because, my opponent needs to elaborate his sense/view of morality. What do you mean by unjust/immoral?

Only because our society has certain moral values does not dictate if those moral values are true to be followed by god. There is nothing inherently right or wrong with how the naturalistic universe behaves, or how things within it behaves. Which is partly the reason why moral nihilism is the end result of non cognitivism.
Please do keep in mind that prayer is irrelevant since we are not referring to religion.

R.3 Defense of St. Anselm
My opponent starts off with how existence is not a predicate. This concludes into that the argument makes the assumption that an existent god is greater than an existing one. This is where I make my argument. You see, I believe that the definition of “greatness” that Anselm put out was the validity of existence. Therefore, an object that does necessarily exists is “greater” than an object that does not necessarily exists.

Lets put this into example with another possible interpretation. If we pick a child that loves its mother, the child can only love its mother if it exists. Same with any other trait. Therefore, the existing child is greater because it can possess that trait.

So, my opponent states that my next ontological argument falls apart simply because he quotes a section from Aquinas about how god cannot be conceivable in the first place. He provides no further justification, besides the fact that only god could know himself.

On top of that, this creates a clear contradiction to my opponents “You can’t prove god does not exist.” argument.

R.4 Defense of William Craig's Ontological argument
The general consensus of this debate is to argue in a way to determine a likelihood of god’s existence. This is the reason why the reverse model of the rebuttal for the ontological argument falls. My opponent cannot replace “It is possible that a maximally great being exists” with “It is possible that a maximally great being does not exists.” This is simply because we are arguing for the sheer likelihood, and contention 3 certainly proves the greater likelihood of god’s existence.

My intentions of posting that argument was because it shows how it is likely that god exists. This is all I need and I do not need to go further to prove god’s existence.

R.5 Exists in all possible worlds Vs. Does not exist in all possible worlds
I believe my opponent may have misinterpreted the argument. When I said that god exists in a possible world, I meant that since god is within possibility, he exists in some world that is also within possibility. There is really no way around that. Saying that there a possible world where he does not exist is false, since the possible world is within possibility, so is god therefore he must exist in that possible world.

I request my opponent to elaborate on the “Necessarily true or necessary existence can be used to justify anything” since I fail to see how that is relevant. We can have a whole other debate in regards to unicorns, so how does it disprove god?

So the reason why the possible world is the same as the real world (as used as in the context of this debate) is because reality is possible and within possibility. And since god is within possibility, and reality is within possibility then he is also within reality.

R.6 Defense of Mulla Sadra
To answer my opponent’s questions, I would first say that when Sadra says “existence” I believe she means everything within existence/reality. The existence that we have is perfect at that state. My personal interpretation is that there is nothing to compare tbe of state “x” of the universe because state “x” is perfect at being state “x” . There cannot be a more perfect state, because there is nothing to compare it to, and it is at its perfect state already.

The reason why the lack of comparison implies perfection is because it is perfect-in its state. For an example (Assume the cut is an imperfection)

-The red dress has has a cut
-It is the only red dress
-That dress is perfect since there is no other dress to compare to, making it the best dress with a cut

Similarly,

-The red dress as a cut
-There is another red dress with no cut
-The red dress is without the cut is perfect

Now, notice how the red dress without the cut is no longer a perfection, since we can compare it to another red dress. The cut hints an imperfection, but even the imperfection is the perfect imperfection because it is the only imperfection, therefore making the imperfection perfect.
Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank Con for their reply.

You can't prove that God (or the demon in front of your screen) doesn't exist.

It should be noted here that my argument here is not lack of proof of X = therefore X certainly does not exist. We could come up with a near infinite amount of propositions that can't be disproven and thus MIGHT (how ever remotely) exist.

Rather I argued even though we can't disprove the existence of the demon in front of your screen we can be justified that it is more likely (although not certain) that it does not exist based on the following.......

1) No good reason to believe the demon exists there in the first place
2) Absence of evidence where we would expect such absence of evidence if the thing did not exist
3) The more and more rationalizations (without justification) that are needed to save the demon propositions from being falsified.

Likewise the same with God.

A general concept of God vs a more specific concept of God (as defined in this debate)

Recall how I argued that anyone who wants to claim that God exists and that God is - An omniscient, omnipotent, loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being without justification becomes more and more less likely to be the case.

Con did not dispute this point.

Occams Razor

Con did not dispute the reasoning of occams razor nor the argument that Gods inaction is more plausibility explained by it's non existence.

Divine Silence Part 1) God neither confirms nor denies
Divine Silence Part 2) Lack of comfort and understanding in time of need

Gods silence in both area's is what we would expect to be the case if God did not exist.

Con merely makes up some arguments of his own making based on unjustness/immorality which are not the arguments I presented. As such the actual arguments remain untouched by Con.

Prayer healing has not being shown to work.

Con's claims prayer healing is not relevant, well I think it is and so do other people. If it was shown that praying to a God, or in a particular way or under certain conditions was shown to be more effective than praying to another God or more effective than praying to a light bulb then that would be evidence that could be used in support of the existence of God.

But it works both ways, It has not being shown that praying to God is anymore effective than praying to a light bulb, it's not as though people lack incentive here or haven't tried. All people can do is used confirmation bias to (falsely) claim prayer healing works.

This is what we would expect to be the case if God did not exist.

God & the best possible world (or not)

1) If God exists then we live in the best possible world
2) More likely we don't live in the best possible world
C) Therefore more likely God does not exist

Con raised no objections here.

Moral paralysis

Con raised no objections here, the argument stands

Now unto Cons arguments in support of the existence of God

St Anselm Ontological argument

Existence is not a predicate

Con does not dispute that existence is not a predicate and thus the comparison of a God that exists in mind vs God that exists in mind and the real world is illict but rather just asserts that it's greater to exist than not too.

Con is certainly free to believe that it is greater to exist than not too, I personally believe it is greater for one billion dollars to exist in my bank account than to not, yet when I look at my bank account it is not there.

You can't justify the existence of something just because you think it is greater for that something to exist than not too.

This just adds more support to my argument previously where I stated..."Just because something can be imagined does that mean it ACTUALLY exists ? of course not. But what if we take anything and everything and claim that it is the "greatest conceivable", does this addition now justify that that thing exists ? No.

To put it more directly the conception of the greatest conceivable being that exists in both mind and reality is it's self a conception and thus like all conceptions does not necessarily correspond to reality."

William Craig's Ontological argument

It is possible God does not exist


Recall here my first objection was that starting with the premise it is possible that God does not exist step by step we get the conclusion that God does not actually exist.

Con says..."My opponent cannot replace "It is possible that a maximally great being exists" with "It is possible that a maximally great being does not exists"

Well Con I just did. This is laughable for Con to think they can just with a wave of the hand dismiss a premise that operates on the same reasoning as their own argument to get the opposite conclusion.

I mean if you going to just think you can dictate at your own pleasure what premises can or can't be considered then.......

1) God exists
2) God does not exist

Well I declare that God does not exist is not allowed, therefore God exists !!!

No reasonable person would take such an argument seriously yet that is what Con has tried to do.

Exists in all possible worlds vs Does not exist in all possible worlds

Recall my previous argument where I argued there is a contradiction....

1.It is possible that a maximally great being exists. (Therefore there is a possible world where a maximally great being does not exist)

&

4.If a maximally great being exists in every possible world,(therefore there is no possible world where it does not exist) then it exists in the actual world.

Either something exists in all possible worlds or it doesn't, it can't be both, thus 1 & 4 contradict each other thus the argument has an internal contradiction to it.

Con just asserts well it's not possible for God to not exist, oh but it is, it really is.

There is no logical contradiction in the following premise.....God does not exist.

The argument stands.

Modal realism has not being justified

Consider the premise that states..."4.If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world."

Recall how I made the argument that a possible world is not necessarily real, Con did not dispute that. Con has made no argument in support of modal realism as such my counter here still stands.

Consider where Con says..."So the reason why the possible world is the same as the real world (as used as in the context of this debate) is because reality is possible and within possibility."

All actuals are possible but are all possibilities actualized ? well clearly not, there are all sorts of possibilities that are not actual (unless you justify modal realism), once again the possibility of one billion dollars in my bank account.

A God that exists in all possible worlds even according to Con is just that a possibility, and like all possibilities is not necessarily ACTUAL.

Ontological argument-Mulla Sadra"s logic

I find the concept of perfection used in this argument muddled. Most people operate on the understanding that to say something is perfect is that it can not be improved upon and or that any change in something that is perfect would mean it is no longer perfect.

But that is not the perfection conception that is used in this argument, rather it takes something and goes looking to make a comparison in the real world and if it does not find something better claims well it's perfect.

Well there is no other debater on here called common debater thus common debator is "perfect".

Also notice here in the argument that the entire of actual things is claimed perfect and God is perfect so, everything is God and everything is perfect..................confusing.

This argument doesn't justify anything about God other than to invoke a unfamiliar conception of "perfect" and apply it to God.

I look forward to Cons response.
Commondebator

Con

Thanks for the reply Pro.


R.1 You can't prove that God (or the demon in front of your screen) doesn't exist.
I felt like this part of my opponent’s argument was simply a repeat, and he did not really rebut it. However, I will rebut my opponent’s argument once again. You cannot put a measure off of “likelihood” off of evidence. This is simply because a lack of evidence, you can not reach to any conclusion whatsoever. It may, or it may not exist. This leads to the ontological argument which Alvin Planting and William Lane Craig certainly do show us that god is more likely to exist.

Simply put, you cannot make subjective views off of evidence, to determine even the likelihood of something objective.

R.2 A general concept of God vs a more specific concept of God (as defined in this debate)
My opponent states that

“Recall how I argued that anyone who wants to claim that God exists and that God is - An omniscient, omnipotent, loving, morally good, just, supernatural, personal being without justification becomes more and more less likely to be the case.”

The reason why you state it is less likely is because the definitions of good such as (Loving, morally good, just, etc…) I argued that Only because our society has certain moral values does not dictate if those moral values are true to be followed by god. There is nothing inherently right or wrong with how the naturalistic universe behaves, or how things within it behaves. Which is partly the reason why moral nihilism is the end result of non cognitivism. Which disputes the “morally good/just part of my opponent’s argument.

A personal being can be defined as a thought, so if Billy has a thought of god, god is Billy’s personal being.

R.3 Occams Razor
Divine Silence Part 1) God neither confirms nor denies

My opponent needs to elaborate on the definition of “confirm nor denies” because then I can easily argue that god is in control of mankind, and denying Billy his candy/confirming Billy can have his candy proves god. That being said, any higher authority can prove the existence of god (according to my opponent).

Plus, since when did god have to confirm of deny in order for him/her to exist?

Divine Silence Part 2) Lack of comfort and understanding in time of need

This literally proves nothing. If Billy is having suicidal thoughts, then one can easily argue that it is not worthy enough to be comforted. Why? Because this is all subjective views. In fact, benevolence does not necessarily have to be derived from a comforting being. This is because there is nothing inherently wrong with not helping a suicidal person.

R.4 Prayer healing has not being shown to work.
Again, prayer is irrelevant since we are not referring to religion. When did an answer to a prayer have to dictate whether god exists? God is defined as a being, therefore he/she has a choice to answer a prayer.If god does not answer a prayer that would show him to be benevolent (Eg. Starving kids praying), then it still is irrelevant because there is nothing inherently right or wrong with how the naturalistic universe behaves, or how things within it behaves. Therefore, there is nothing inherently wrong with starving kids. (Or any other example).

R.5 God & the best possible world (or not)
Actually, I argued how we are perfect because there is nothing else to compare to. Which is why I will now defend against Mulla Sadra.

“I find the concept of perfection used in this argument muddled. Most people operate on the understanding that to say something is perfect is that it can not be improved upon and or that any change in something that is perfect would mean it is no longer perfect.”

You see, in this scenario perfection is not being used in subjective terms (E.g That war can be improved). Rather, why perfection is objective in this one is because if we do not compare anything else to, so that thing is perfect in the sense there is nothing to compare to, therefore making that item perfect.

To take my opponent’s example using my name, I have the best name called “Commondebator” on this site simply because there is no other name “Commondebator” to compare to.

R.6 Moral paralysis
I have repeated this several times throughout the debate and it is evident that my opponent is not reading my argument. If there is suffering, there is nothing inherently wrong inherently right or wrong with how the naturalistic universe behaves, or how things within it behaves.

R.7 St Anselm's Ontological argument
Con misinterprets my argument since I am using “greatness” as a validity of existence. In my definition, the validity of existence is the likelihood, or the possibility of the existence. For an example, the red dress that is currently in front of me (exists) is greater than a red dress that may or may not exist. Only because, the red dress that is in front of me more likely exists than the dress that may not.

If we pick a child that loves its mother, the child can only love its mother if it exists. Same with any other trait. Therefore, the existing child is greater because it can possess that trait.

R.8 William Craig’s Ontological argument
When we take the likelihood of god's existence, we are not talking about definitive proof. While both arguments are valid (RMOA and the MOA), then we both need to advocate why one is greater than the other. Otherwise, we are getting nowhere. In order to advocate why the MOA is superior than the RMOA, I will do so in the rebuttal attacking the MOA.

It is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it exists on some possible world. In the next premises, we replace in some possible world to every possible world making god necessary in a possible world. This seems odd, but an eternal being is only existing in possibility. Now, we can take this further stating that reality is within possibility. This does not make the argument non sequitur since, the necessity is implying only within possibility-or in a possible world that we do not know that exist, however may. Which then makes reality within possibility.

R.9 Exists in all possible words vs Does not exists in all possible worlds.
Again, when I said that god exists in a possible world, I meant that since god is within possibility, he exists in some world that is also within possibility. There is really no way around that. Saying that there a possible world where he does not exist is false, since the possible world is within possibility, so is god therefore he must exist in that possible world.

What my opponent tried to do is, take “Within possibility” and changed it to “Not within possibility”, when the entire statement was solely referring to within possibility! So how can you change to definition of the statement?

R.10 Modal realism has not being justified
My opponent tries to dispute the argument of how billions of dollars in a bank account is within possibility, therefore this is a billion dollars in a bank account.

This is not what my argument is referring to if we take a supreme being into the equation. If a supreme being exists within possibility, then he exists in all possibilities/possible worlds. When we look at my opponent’s argument, it becomes clear that the argument he tried to replace with my argument does not work since the two arguments to not even match up.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Please shorten to 4 rounds and I'll accept.
No votes have been placed for this debate.