The Instigator
MysticEgg
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
lolzors93
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

God probably exists. (Version 2).

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,151 times Debate No: 37103
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

MysticEgg

Con

Welcome to this debate, everyone! This is a common topic that is oft debated and I want a piece (or another piece...) of the action, so to speak. Now, for the purposes of this debate; I will define God as following:
The (notice the definite article - only God) omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent creator of the Universe that is described in the Bible. The rules are as follows:
1) First round is not for acceptance only, Pro must present opening arguments in round one.
2) Fifth round is closing statements only, no new arguments or refutes.
3) A forfeit of a round is an irreversible breach of conduct. If both players forfeit; conduct is "tied".
4) The BoP is on Pro. Con can give arguments to show that God probably doesn't exist, but that is not a necessary burden.
5) You agree with the definition of God as described above.
6) You agree to these rules by accepting the debate.
7) Citing sources alone do not count as arguments by themselves. both Pro and Con will have to actually type up an argument. (Apparently this wasn't obvious with my first version.)
I believe that's all; if anyone has any questions, please post a comment. Good luck to all, and allez!
lolzors93

Pro

If God is defined as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent creator of the Universe that is described in the Bible, then it follows that God would be the greatest being in which no greater can be conceived. What being could be conceived to be greater (meaning maximal, not subjective)? Could there be a being that is more great? By no means! For who could contemplate two beings that are equally maximally great? One of them must be the greatest.
Now, how we define omnipotence is important. When philosophers and theologians think of an omnipotent being, they think of a being that can do all things that are logical, nothing more. That means that God cannot create a married bachelor, since that would go against that definitional "form" of both properties/predicates. Hence, God cannot make Himself not omnipotent, by making a rock that is too big for Him to lift. However, if we define this being as capable of being able to make a rock bigger than He can lift, then He could do the logically impossible, thus, also making Him able to lift this rock that cannot be lifted.
Now, if we take into consideration all of these things, then we can determine that it is possible for there to exist a being in which no greater can be conceived. Moreover, when one thinks of God, and when one looks at the definition, then it follows that regardless of the circumstances of the world, He would still be the greatest being that is possible. Hence, we can derive another definitional aspect of the being: God is necessary, not contingent. In modal logic, things are split into the possible and the impossible. The impossible is the logically absurd, such as a married-bachelor. The possible is further spilt into two separate sections: contingent and necessary. Contingent things are things such as unicorns or the tooth fairy; hence, they exist in some possible world, which is defined in modal logic as a possible reality, or series of variables. Necessary things are things that apply to all possible worlds (i.e. shape definitions).
As Alvin Plantinga defined, so too will I define the following: a maximally excellent being is a being that maximal in some possible world, while a maximally great being is a being that is maximally excellent in every possible world. From this, we can determine that God would fit into the maximally great slot definition. Therefore, we derive the following:
(1) A maximally great being is possible.
(2) A maximally great being exists in some possible world.
(3) A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Refer to the definition of maximally great)
(4) A maximally great being exists in the actual world.
Most (keep this in mind) philosophers believe this argument to be one of the best, if not the best, arguments for God. The majority tend to deduce that God must either be necessary or impossible. Furthermore, God is a supernatural entity and cannot be truly explained via natural phenomena, thus, rendering science useless here. Continued, in modal logic, all things are possible until proven impossible. Hence, it is up to the atheist to prove that God is impossible. How is God impossible? I displayed earlier, with the omnipotence "paradox", that most objections to the nature of God are complex and illogical questions from the start. They are almost equivalent to asking whether squares have 2 or 3 sides: it doesn't make sense.
Therefore, I leave the question as to whether God is possible to my opponent. Kant's objection is pointless here, since being is not the predicate here, nor the subject of determining greatness (except to display that God would always be the greatest being possible). Gaunilo's objection is also pointless, since no other thing has the properties to determine it to be maximally great; many objects are also incapable of being maxed.
Debate Round No. 1
MysticEgg

Con

I thank my opponent for his argument; I will respond appropriately.

My opponent's argument can be boiled down to his step by step "walk through" per se, to prove the omnipotence of God. I will refute it accordingly.
"(1) A maximally great being is possible.
(2) A maximally great being exists in some possible world.
(3) A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Refer to the definition of maximally great)
(4) A maximally great being exists in the actual world."

I will work down.

"(1) A maximally great being is possible."
The argument falls here - my opponent has not demonstrated how this is possible. He attempts to dodge the question by shifting the burden of proof onto myself, backing it up by stating that: "in modal logic, all things are possible until proven impossible." While this could be true, my opponent has provided no source to back up this assertion, so it is an assertion without evidence. And, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Until my opponent provides evidence that "in modal logic, all things are possible until proven impossible", I will be forced to dismiss my opponent's claim. But, let's assume that a maximally great being is possible, and continue.
(One can essentially dismiss point two, as, by definition, a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds from the start).

"(3) A maximally great being exists in every possible world". This is not true. Take, for example, a world of non-sentience . In a non-sentient world, there can be no sentient beings, such as a maximally great one. So, if this maximally great being exists, then, logically, no non-sentient worlds exist. This would be logical. However, for this maximally great being (MGB) to exist, Pro must prove that a non-sentient world is impossible. He has not done this. His argument, as it stands, is refuted.

Now some arguments to show that the God of the Bible is not probable. (Though this is not a burden, as agreed upon by my opponent by his acceptance of this debate).

Contention 1: Epicurus' Argument. (This argument was probably not Epicurus', but for the sake of argument, we'll assume it is his, as it really makes little difference).
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent [not omnibenevolent].
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God? [not omnipotent nor omnibenevolent]".
This is an argument that, while not relating to the God of the Bible in its original context, I will apply now. This argument, when applied to the God of the Bible, demonstrates how the God of the Bible does not have the qualities that the Bible asserts. Thus, the God of the Bible does not exist.

Contention 2: Argument from Perfection.
The argument is simple:
(P1) God is a perfect thing (a perfect being).
(P2) Perfect things are usually nonexistent idealizations of real things.
(P3) Perfect things are unlikely to exist. (from P2)
(C) Therefore, it is unlikely [not probable] that God exists. (from P3 and P1).

The God of the Bible is perfect[1]. So P1 is true.
P2 is also true, because most things that are considered to be perfect are real things that are imagined to be better. For example, a perfect day is (on the day of imagining of this day) the current day that could have or can go better. This is not always true, but it is usually true, as P2 states.
P3 follows logically from P2.
The conclusion follows logically from P3 and P1.

Conclusion.
Pro failed to meet his burden of proof in round one - as shifting the burden of proof is not recognised as logical at this point in time of the debate, Pro's premise one is a claim that he has thus far not verified, and Pro's premise three is not logical, either, unless Pro first demonstrates how non-sentient worlds are impossible.

I thank my opponent, the voters, the audience; I await my opponent's response(s)!

Source(s):

[1]http://biblehub.com...
lolzors93

Pro

**My opponent's argument can be boiled down to his step by step "walk through" per se, to prove the omnipotence of God. I will refute it accordingly.
"(1) A maximally great being is possible.
(2) A maximally great being exists in some possible world.
(3) A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Refer to the definition of maximally great)
(4) A maximally great being exists in the actual world."**

This argument is not proving omnipotence. The argument is proving existence.

**"(1) A maximally great being is possible."
The argument falls here - my opponent has not demonstrated how this is possible. He attempts to dodge the question by shifting the burden of proof onto myself, backing it up by stating that: "in modal logic, all things are possible until proven impossible." While this could be true, my opponent has provided no source to back up this assertion, so it is an assertion without evidence. And, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Until my opponent provides evidence that "in modal logic, all things are possible until proven impossible", I will be forced to dismiss my opponent's claim. But, let's assume that a maximally great being is possible, and continue.
(One can essentially dismiss point two, as, by definition, a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds from the start).**

It simply is the rule in modal logic that all things are possible unless logically incomprehensible. The only way something can be proven to be incomprehensible is to display that is contradicts another variable. Hence, the burden of proof is shifted to the atheist. Do not dodge the question; do no commit a red herring.

**"(3) A maximally great being exists in every possible world". This is not true. Take, for example, a world of non-sentience . In a non-sentient world, there can be no sentient beings, such as a maximally great one. So, if this maximally great being exists, then, logically, no non-sentient worlds exist. This would be logical. However, for this maximally great being (MGB) to exist, Pro must prove that a non-sentient world is impossible. He has not done this. His argument, as it stands, is refuted.**

Logic is the process of the mind. There are logical absolutes, such as A cannot equal not A. Hence, logical absolutes, such as A cannot equal not A, are formulated from the mind. If logic is not factored into reality, then we can assume that the universe can be here and not here at the same time. We can also assume that logic is real and not real at the same time. We can also assume that sentient beings are real and not real at the same time. Hence, a world without sentient beings is illogical. Also, this assumes for God, likewise, since logic is absolute and eternal, thus, requiring a sentient and absolute being. Furthermore, this displays the contradictory nature of the previous rebut, which was for me to prove to him the statement of "all things are possible until proven impossible. Continued, this argument also assumes for the non-existence of God, thus, displaying a logical fallacy of begging the question. His argument is really connected to whether God is possible or not. Thus, this rebut it pointless.

**Now some arguments to show that the God of the Bible is not probable. (Though this is not a burden, as agreed upon by my opponent by his acceptance of this debate).**

This is irrelevant. God cannot possible exist but not probably exist. God either is necessary or God is impossible. Hence, this is an illogical statement.

**Contention 1: Epicurus' Argument. (This argument was probably not Epicurus', but for the sake of argument, we'll assume it is his, as it really makes little difference).
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent [not omnibenevolent].
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God? [not omnipotent nor omnibenevolent]".**

God is able to destroy evil; however, He is willing and not willing to do it. As displayed int he Bible, God allows evil to bring about a greater good, which God has predestined; this does not make God evil, though, for He plans to destroy it in time (refer to Proverbs 16:4 and Romans 9 and Genesis 50:20). For assuming for evil is assuming for God, since the only way to assume for an objective moral standard is to assume for an objective moral prescriber. Hence, it is illogical to address evil and then say that God does not exist.

**Contention 2: Argument from Perfection.
The argument is simple:
(P1) God is a perfect thing (a perfect being).
(P2) Perfect things are usually nonexistent idealizations of real things.
(P3) Perfect things are unlikely to exist. (from P2)
(C) Therefore, it is unlikely [not probable] that God exists. (from P3 and P1).**

This is irrelevant. Whether God is possible is the key question.

My opponent has yet to actually address the argument: he has committed red herrings and begging the question fallacies throughout his post. He has yet to meet his burden of proof that coincides with modal logic basics, nor has he demonstrated to me how God would be impossible.
Debate Round No. 2
MysticEgg

Con

I thank my opponent for his refutes; I will respond.

First off, my opponent's burden of proof is to show that "God is probably real". If he cannot do that; he has failed. He accepted this (rule four) by joining the debate.
"Whether God is possible is the key question."
No it's not. The question is "Is God probable?", merely expressed as a resolution, hence, "God probably exists". If my opponent has proved God's existence to be not probable, but absolute, then he has failed in his burden. So either:
a) My opponent has presented an (if logically solid) argument to prove the existence of God. Thus, he has showed it is not probable, and has failed. Or:
b) My opponent doesn't see his argument as logical - thus he has committed logical fallacies - and failed to meet his burden.

The resolution is quite simple.
Thus far, my opponent has not met his burden.

Nevertheless (for the spirit of the debate), I will continue to refute the argument my opponent presents.

"(1) A maximally great being is possible.
(2) A maximally great being exists in some possible world.
(3) A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Refer to the definition of maximally great)
(4) A maximally great being exists in the actual world."

Premise one has failed; I will show why.
The burden of proof. As a default, the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion[1] (in this case that God is probable - even though my opponent's argument, if it is true, has won me the debate by showing how God is not probable, but absolute).
My opponent still makes claims with no evidence.
"It simply is the rule in modal logic that all things are possible unless logically incomprehensible." I will make my own claim.

"It is simply the rule in modal logic that the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the assertion. This can be shown because modal logic is an extension of logic[2], and in logic, the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion[1]. Therefore, the burden of proof in modal logic lies with the one making the assertion." Or, to put it another way:

P1: In logic, the burden of proof lies with the one that makes the assertion[1].
P2: Modal logic is an extension of logic[2].
C: Therefore, in modal logic, the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion.

Unless my opponent can provide more than claims, I am allowed to dismiss them. My opponent might want to cite sources, for example, to show this. No red herring has been committed.

Now, before moving on, I am going to use the Ontological argument to disprove God.
The greatest thing you can conceive is not God, it's Godd, who is like God, except that Godd, by definition, disproves any other maximally great beings, such as the God in the Bible. Now, I will use my opponent's flawless logic to win the debate:

(1) It is possible that Godd (a MGB) exists.
(2) Godd exists in some possible world.
(3) Godd exists in all possible worlds. (Refer to the definition of maximally great)
(4) Therefore, Godd exists in the actual world.

What can we conclude? Well, since Godd exists, the God of the Bible doesn't exist. Let's not forget that my opponent has to prove Godd to be impossible, for he has the burden of proof.
Two possibilities exist from this:
ai) That is not flawed logic, and my opponent's argument proving the God of the Bible has failed. Or,
bi) That is flawed logic, in which case the Ontological argument has failed.
Either way, my opponent has failed at:
aii) Proving God to be probable
bii) If ai is correct then be opponent's argument proving the God of the Bible to be real has failed.
ci) If bi is correct then the Ontological argument has failed, thus disproving my opponent's claim.
There are no other options.

I am not sure what else to say, really. I will re-cap.

1) If the person making the assertion (Pro) has the BoP, then he has failed at premise one. If Con has the BoP, then Pro has the BoP for Godd; to show how Godd is impossible. (Godd is like God except Godd, by definition, disproves God of the Bible).

2) If the Ontological argument is correct, I have proved Godd to be real, thus proving God to be false. But...if the Ontological argument is correct, then my opponent has proved God to be real, but I have proved him to be false...and the circular reasoning of the Ontological argument goes on. It fails, because you can use it to prove AND disprove God, by stating that it is "possible" for anything to exist and that this thing that one asserts is, by definition, a MGb. Here's another one:

P1: "Noodle" is a MGB that, by definition, cures all starving humans.
P2: It is possible that Noodle exists.
P3: If Noodle exists, he will exist in this world, as Noodle is a MGB.
P4: Therefore, Noodle exists in this world.
C: There are no starving humans in this world.

So...if the Ontological argument is correct, there are no starving humans in this world. However:
Fact: There are starving children in this world.
C: Therefore, Noodle does not exist. But...this proves the Ontological argument wrong.

Pro could counter that, by definition, God is the greatest thing that one can imagine. However, that is not in the definition as agreed upon (rule five) by my opponent. (He agreed by joining this debate [rule six]). So, by the definition of God as agreed upon in this debate, that counter doesn't hold water.

I rest my case, and await my opponent's response.

Source(s):

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
lolzors93

Pro

**First off, my opponent's burden of proof is to show that "God is probably real". If he cannot do that; he has failed. He accepted this (rule four) by joining the debate.**

And I have displayed, through reasoning, God is either possible or impossible and that no one has demonstrated that God is impossible, thus, realizing that God is probably absolute. You have yet to demonstrate anything against that notion. That was my argument.

Nevertheless (for the spirit of the debate), I will continue to refute the argument my opponent presents.

**Premise one has failed; I will show why.
The burden of proof. As a default, the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion[1] (in this case that God is probable - even though my opponent's argument, if it is true, has won me the debate by showing how God is not probable, but absolute).**
Okay, then you win that God is not probable but absolute. However, as I said earlier, thats not what I'm referring to.

**My opponent still makes claims with no evidence.
"It simply is the rule in modal logic that all things are possible unless logically incomprehensible." I will make my own claim.**

This is a modal logic fact: everything is possible unless contradictory. That is the entire point of modal logic. You make assumptions, then infer what would be and what would not be in that possible world. Hence, everything is possible until something within that world makes it contradictory. Please take a modal logic course.

**"It is simply the rule in modal logic that the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the assertion. This can be shown because modal logic is an extension of logic[2], and in logic, the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion[1]. Therefore, the burden of proof in modal logic lies with the one making the assertion." Or, to put it another way:
P1: In logic, the burden of proof lies with the one that makes the assertion[1].
P2: Modal logic is an extension of logic[2].
C: Therefore, in modal logic, the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion.**

And the assertion is always with the person claiming impossibility. Thats the point. You have yet to demonstrate that God is impossible.

**Unless my opponent can provide more than claims, I am allowed to dismiss them. My opponent might want to cite sources, for example, to show this. No red herring has been committed.**

Cite sources for what? The process of modal logic is in of itself a process of assuming possibility and then determining impossibility. You rebut it like asking for me to cite why history looks at the past: it is in the definition of the process; it simply is.

**Now, before moving on, I am going to use the Ontological argument to disprove God.
The greatest thing you can conceive is not God, it's Godd, who is like God, except that Godd, by definition, disproves any other maximally great beings, such as the God in the Bible. Now, I will use my opponent's flawless logic to win the debate:
(1) It is possible that Godd (a MGB) exists.
(2) Godd exists in some possible world.
(3) Godd exists in all possible worlds. (Refer to the definition of maximally great)
(4) Therefore, Godd exists in the actual world.**

You know very well that what you have just said is not an argument. Why would something be in any way greater for having an extra letter? You are also verging on Gaunilo's objection, which has been rebutted multiple times as well.

My opponent has yet to make any arguments. He has presented logical fallacy after logical fallacy: red herrings, straw men, and begging the question. There has to be any intellectual rebut to my first post. Hence, there is no reasonable reason to reject the notion that God probably exists.
Debate Round No. 3
MysticEgg

Con

It seems confusion has ensued; I will attempt to clear this up.
"And I have displayed, through reasoning, God is either possible or impossible and that no one has demonstrated that God is impossible, thus, realizing that God is probably absolute. You have yet to demonstrate anything against that notion. That was my argument."
If you have displayed that god in an absolute for one way of the other, you have not met your burden. Now, as for my burden, I have to refute any arguments to show how God is probable. Has this happened? No. My opponent's argument deals in absolutes. I don't even have to refute it. But I am trying to. Hopefully, with this cleared up, and the spirit of the debate still going on, we can continue.

It seems my opponent has consented the debate to me
"Okay, then you win that God is not probable but absolute."
I understand my opponent's frustration, but I cannot change the title. This debate has been consented to Con.
"Please take a modal logic course." I ask my opponent to cease his ad hominem attacks. Frustration? Fine. But ad homs? Not acceptable.

"This is a modal logic fact: everything is possible unless contradictory."
I will accept this, for the sake of argument.

"You have yet to demonstrate that God is impossible."
Allow me to do so now.

Contention 3: The Omniscient Changes the Future
A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and free-willed is impossible.

Contention 4: God is not just, and thus impossible.
God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in Hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible. Thus, the God of the Bible does not exist.

Contention 5: Belief more important than action.
It is clear from the Bible that it matters not what you have done - not how loving, kind, compassionate you are. The God of the Bible makes it clear that you have two options:
a) Worship me or
b) Burn forever in Hell.

Anyone who lived before Jesus? They're in Hell. The Amazonian tribesman? They're in Hell. Punishing someone for rules and laws that:
a) They've never even heard of
b) Are not necessary to live a satisfactory life and
c) They have no reason to have heard of them
Is not just. In most any court of law (in a first world country), people will be punished on their actions, not their beliefs. Why? Because it's not just and subjective depending on the belief(s) of the person(s). Not just. Thus, the God of the Bible is impossible.

Now, as for my version of the Ontological argument. If we say Godd is like God in every way. There is no reason to reject Godd over God (without rejecting God, too) because God's attributes are accepted into the Ontological argument. Actually, we need not add any more, because the God of the Bible is the only God. So one of God's attributes is being unique. Hence:
Godd is unique. That's all very fine and good, but we must prove them. Easy! Use the Ontological argument.

(1) It is possible that Godd (a MGB) exists.
(2) Godd exists in some possible world.
(3) Godd exists in all possible worlds. (Refer to the definition of maximally great)
(C1) Therefore, Godd exists in the actual world.
(C2) Since Godd is, by definition, unique, God does not exist in the actual world.

Now, for my opponent's version.

(1) A maximally great being is possible. (God)
(2) A maximally great being exists in some possible world.
(3) A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Refer to the definition of maximally great)
(C) God exists in the actual world.
(C2) God is unique, by definition, therefore Godd does not exist.

What have we concluded? That either: Godd and God are impossible because they contradict each other, by definition or
The Ontological argument doesn't work when one applies it to another MGB.

"Why would something be in any way greater for having an extra letter?"
1) The extra letter is not the point; the point is that Godd is unique (like God) by definition to this world.
2) You have the burden to prove this God impossible.

Remember, this God (called Godd) is exactly like God. Godd is unique, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.
My opponent (as he has been stressing) has the burden of proof to prove Godd to be impossible. Of course, if one were to say that:
Godd is impossible because of God. Then that's begging the question.
"You are also verging on Gaunilo's objection, which has been rebutted multiple times as well."
Well...no, because his objection was something that was different from God. Godd is like Godd in every attribute, remember.

My opponent has used a red herring fallacy.
Prove Godd to be impossible without begging the question. (Remember, he's exactly like God, and God is exactly like Godd).

I await my opponent's response(s)!
lolzors93

Pro

**If you have displayed that god in an absolute for one way of the other, you have not met your burden. Now, as for my burden, I have to refute any arguments to show how God is probable. Has this happened? No. My opponent's argument deals in absolutes. I don't even have to refute it. But I am trying to. Hopefully, with this cleared up, and the spirit of the debate still going on, we can continue.**

I have met my burden of proof. I have displayed that if God is possible, then God is necessary. Thus, the burden of proof has shifted to you. Stop ignoring the question.

**It seems my opponent has consented the debate to me
"Okay, then you win that God is not probable but absolute."
I understand my opponent's frustration, but I cannot change the title. This debate has been consented to Con.**

This is a clear reading out of context. Apply context.

**"Please take a modal logic course." I ask my opponent to cease his ad hominem attacks. Frustration? Fine. But ad homs? Not acceptable.**

This is not an ad hominem attack. And ad hominem attack is one that determines that the argument is falls via the person's character. This is not even an attack against the character.

**Contention 3: The Omniscient Changes the Future
A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and free-willed is impossible.**

Omniscience is a factor of knowing all things, which includes all possible worlds. Omnipotence is a factor of being able to do all possible things. This, thus, reverts into the Euthyphro dilemma, which is not a dilemma. when looking at the transcendental argument for God, one will find that logic had to have been created by God; however, if logic was created by God, then what was before it's creation? Hence, we find two contentions against his contention: (1) God's creation of the world is apart of His being and absoluteness, thus, being a factor of His own nature, thus, not allowing Himself to do anything but what His nature entails, (2) He created it, just like logic and morality, but before its creation logic was not real, thus, making God free then. However, even at that, as I displayed earlier, God cannot go against His own nature, which is to say do the logically impossible. Hence, there is no problem here anyways, since there is no contradiction.

**Contention 4: God is not just, and thus impossible.
God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in Hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible. Thus, the God of the Bible does not exist.**

This is not an argument. This is based in suppositions and desires, not justice. Surely, if we were totally deprived and against God, as the Bible says, we would hate God and His justice. Furthermore, he is claiming morality, and justice, to be absolute, which requires a moral absolute prescriber. Hence, God is just and it goes against our deep natural desires.

**Contention 5: Belief more important than action.
It is clear from the Bible that it matters not what you have done - not how loving, kind, compassionate you are. The God of the Bible makes it clear that you have two options:
a) Worship me or
b) Burn forever in Hell.**

This is not an argument either: it fails to realize what the Bible even states and fails to even provide an issue of God being possible. The Bible states that all sin is rooted in evil; evil is not just doing evil things in the positive, but also doing evil things in the negative. Hence, when one does believe in God, then the natural overflow is good works and loving, kindness, and compassion. Also, this has no bearing on whether God is possible or not.

**Anyone who lived before Jesus? They're in Hell. The Amazonian tribesman? They're in Hell. Punishing someone for rules and laws that:
a) They've never even heard of
b) Are not necessary to live a satisfactory life and
c) They have no reason to have heard of them
Is not just. In most any court of law (in a first world country), people will be punished on their actions, not their beliefs. Why? Because it's not just and subjective depending on the belief(s) of the person(s). Not just. Thus, the God of the Bible is impossible.**

There is no free will. God has preplanned everything; if you want to say from the before that it is in His nature for this story to unfold, then we don't have free will there either: God has preplanned for some to believe and some to not believe (Romans 9). Continued, he keeps claiming a sense of absolute morality, yet has no basis in what it is except his own opinion. Hence, this is not an argument either.

**What have we concluded? That either: Godd and God are impossible because they contradict each other, by definition or
The Ontological argument doesn't work when one applies it to another MGB.**

I already addressed this last time. There is no reason for Godd to be any greater than God. This means that they are the same being.

**"Why would something be in any way greater for having an extra letter?"
1) The extra letter is not the point; the point is that Godd is unique (like God) by definition to this world.
2) You have the burden to prove this God impossible.**

Uniqueness is not a bearing on maximal greatness. This is the same being.

**Remember, this God (called Godd) is exactly like God. Godd is unique, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.
My opponent (as he has been stressing) has the burden of proof to prove Godd to be impossible. Of course, if one were to say that:
Godd is impossible because of God. Then that's begging the question.
"You are also verging on Gaunilo's objection, which has been rebutted multiple times as well."
Well...no, because his objection was something that was different from God. Godd is like Godd in every attribute, remember.**

You're not understanding the argument.... there is no reason to say that Godd is greater than God. Hence, they are the same being.

**My opponent has used a red herring fallacy.
Prove Godd to be impossible without begging the question. (Remember, he's exactly like God, and God is exactly like Godd).**

This contradicts exactly what you said before that Godd is unique and different. He is the same being.

We have yet to see any logical rebut, except for the omniscience and omnipotence paradox. He has committed so many logical fallacies. It is obvious who won this debate..... At one point while writing this response I thought he was simply a troll trying to mess with me... Its that bad.... Please, actually argue with reasoning, not opinion. Also, please do some research on the ontological argument; I'm not sure you understand it.
Debate Round No. 4
MysticEgg

Con

As per the rules laid out in the debate; neither myself or my opponent can add any new refutes or contentions. I will, therefore, re-cap.

This is the question: "Is God probable?" It is expressed as a resolution: "God is probable."
My opponent's burden is to prove this. He accepted this (rule four) by joining the debate. The Ontological argument, as my opponent has presented (I couldn't find another version of it around the Internets, though I found similar versions) has been, in the end, pointless. Why? Well, if it's logical, then God/Godd (they're the same being) is necessary. Something cannot be probable and necessary at the same. So, the burden has not been met. If my opponent's saw this resolution as impossible or not logical, then it seems he made a bad choice by joining the debate. The burden is:
"God is probable". Not:
"God is necessary" or
"Does God exist", but
"God is probable". If this is not logical, then I apologise; I failed to see it as such. But, whether this is logical or not, that is the resolution, and my opponent has failed to meet it.

"It is obvious who [has] won this debate". No.
On one hand, you haven't met your burden, but on the other, I have clearly shown I misunderstanding of the Ontological argument. Yes, I admit it. Not trolling, but human error. "It[']s that bad..." Well, I'm sorry. I cannot offer anything else.

I would recommend a tie.
For you: You've failed to meet the burden you accepted [rules four and six], however illogical it may have been.
For me: I have clearly misunderstood the Ontological argument; I have committed fallacies.
For these reasons, I recommend a tie to my opponent. I cannot offer anything else in terms of fairness. I don't deserve a victory, that's clear. But neither do you (no offense), your burden, no matter how impossible, has not been met. You've shown how God is necessary should your argument be logical. Thus, not probable. Thus, the burden hasn't been met.

Well, that's all I can offer. This debate has been back and forth, misunderstood, and no one deserves a victory. I apologise if it looked like I've been trolling; I assure you I haven't. I'll get back to it, and maybe to another debate on the Ontological argument.

Kindest regards,
J
lolzors93

Pro

Something that is necessary can be probable; it is simply absolutely probable. I have shown that God is absolute and that God is possible, thus, making Him real. Therefore, God is probably absolute and probable within absolution.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lolzors93 3 years ago
lolzors93
@TryingAtLogic
"1. Anything could exist." I don't agree with this statement. Married-bachelors cannot exist; square circles cannot exist; an animal that is not an animal cannot exist. However, things that are logically possible, I agree that they could exist.
"2. Not everything exists." I agree that not everything exists in this possible world. However, they do exist in some possible world.
"3. Thus, something is not real, even if it is possible." I agree that there are many things that are contingent beings, such as unicorns or dwarves or magical dragons or the teapot. However, because of their ability to not be logically impossible, they exist in some possible world, though no necessarily the actual world. The difference between these beings and God is that God by definition , classically and philosophically, cannot be contingent solely. For example, shape definitions are necessary and apply to all possible worlds. However, unicorns have no reason to be applied to all possible worlds; hence, they are contingent beings. God, by definition of Him always being the greatest being possible, regardless of the circumstances, makes it so that He is necessarily necessary, not contingent. Hence, He is real in every possible world. I understand that it is highly improbably for unicorns to exist in the actual world, but that they are possible. Hence, that is why they exist in some possible world but not our actual world.
It seems to me that you are fuzzy on modal logic. Please try to do some research on the topic.
Posted by TryingAtLogic 3 years ago
TryingAtLogic
@lolzors93

Follow this logical train for a moment, yes?

1. Anything could exist.

2. Not everything exists.

3. Thus, something is not real, even if it is possible.

Yes? Where do you disagree?
Posted by lolzors93 3 years ago
lolzors93
@TryingAtLogic

I don't you are understanding my argument all too well... I understand probability perfectly. My point, though, was that if God is *possible*, then He is *real, necessarily*. Hence, probability is only derived from whether God is possible or not: "it is probable that God is possible," or "it is probable that God is impossible." Russell's teapot exists in space, in some possible world; Sagan's magical dragon exists in some possible world as well. However, that does not make them real, let alone probable in this possible word. The ontological argument deduces, meaning that the argument flows necessarily and intrinsically, that if God is possible, regardless of probability, then God is real. I am not arguing that God is possible and, therefore, probable, though I am arguing that in a certain sense. I understand probability and possibility; however, probability only matters in this argument in regards to whether God is possible or not. Does that make sense to you?
Posted by TryingAtLogic 3 years ago
TryingAtLogic
@lolzors93

I don't think you understand the concept of probability. Just because something is *possible,* it does not mean it is *probable.* For example, Bertrand Russell's Space Teapot or Carl Sagan's Magical Dragon are, theoretically speaking, *possible.* This, in no way, makes them *probable.* Does that make sense to you?
Posted by lolzors93 3 years ago
lolzors93
Probable simply means that it is likely to happen (90% or so, let's say, likely). Absolute simply means that it will happen (100% likely). Hence, probably is contained within absolute.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
I'm hoping that the Argument from Perfection is satirical.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
If something is necessarily absolutely probable then it is an oxymoron.
Posted by jamestheawesomeperson 3 years ago
jamestheawesomeperson
This is a good debate...
Posted by Deathmonkey7 3 years ago
Deathmonkey7
Read the title, thought about joining in just to argue the possibility of a god existing, but it wouldn't be possible for me to argue for the specific god of the bible.

Not that I believe in a god per se, but the thought of debating the possibility intrigued me.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Both.
No votes have been placed for this debate.