The Instigator
Atheism_Debater
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
Commondebator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

God's Existence (Christian)

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 1 vote the winner is...
Atheism_Debater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,355 times Debate No: 70626
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (1)

 

Atheism_Debater

Con


In this debate, intend to discuss the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist. Thus my opponent will be arguing that God does exist.


Definitions:


God: A divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, supreme being that is thought to have created life, moral values, and the universe.


Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods.


Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods.


Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.


Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.


Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future.


Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything.


Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.



Rules:


First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals.


A forfeit is an automatic loss.


My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round.


Do not limit your duties. Many religious debaters limit their task to proving that there is a possibility that God exists. This is obviously unfair, for I am arguing God does not exist, my opponent is arguing that God does exist.





Merriam Webster


Commondebator

Pro

I accept sir
Debate Round No. 1
Atheism_Debater

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate Pro, and I look forward to its outcome.

Arguments:

“As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him.”

Psalm 18:30

“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Matthew 5:48

“The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; “

Psalm 19:7

From this evidence we can conclude without a doubt that God is deemed perfect. Something is deemed ‘perfect’ when it fits completely to an ideal standard of that thing, which entails that it cannot be any better. Therefore a perfect thing will have no flaws, defects, lacks, weaknesses, disadvantages; it will not possess any negative feature or lack of a positive feature that pushes it away from the ideal perfection. Since God is perfect, it cannot create imperfect things thus losing its perfection.

Things that we call "perfect" are usually exaggerations of real things. For example, you might wonder what a "perfect friend" might be like, yet no one has a perfect friend in real life. Anyone who says that they do is probably exaggerating. The same goes for intimate partners, children, pets, parents, bosses and employees, teachers, students, schools, jobs, and so on. Perfection in any of these categories tends to be an idealization of real things, where the good aspects are preserved and perfected while the bad aspects are eliminated. We can infer something said to be "perfect" is unlikely to exist because perfect things tend to be nonexistent idealizations of real things. Since perfect things are unlikely to exist and God is a perfect thing, it follows that it is unlikely that God exists.

  • God is a perfect being that created the universe.

  • If God exists, then the world is perfect before the creation of the universe.

  • God would not make the world worse in virtue of his moral perfection.

  • If God exists, then the world is perfect during and after the creation of the universe.

  • If God exists, then the world is perfect.

  • The world is imperfect.

  • Therefore, God does not exist.

Now onto my second point.

People seem to believe that God is the most moral being in the universe. Part of this belief is that God does not have certain kinds of feelings. Although God may have the feeling of anger, God does not have the feelings of lust or envy. Moreover, part of this ordinary concept of God is that God knows more than anyone else. In particular the ordinary man supposes that God knows (at least) all that men know. However these two beliefs, once correctly understood, are logically incompatible.

A person who knows lust and envy has at least had the feeling of lust or envy. Since God has all of men's knowledge and more, he must know lust and envy. But to say God has known lust and envy is to say that God has had the feelings of lust and envy. But this is incompatible with God's moral goodness. Hence God does not exist.

  • If God exists, God has not had the feelings of lust or envy therefore not intruding on his moral existence.

  • If God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows and more.

  • If God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows, God knows lust and envy.

  • If God knows lust and envy, God has had the feelings of lust and envy.

  • God does not exist.

Now onto my last point.

The Christian God is defined as a personal being that is all-knowing. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is choice. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, you can never know with entire certainty what the future holds since you have free-will.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Conclusion:

I would like to thank my opponent very much for accepting this debate. This is the end of my response as I have stated my three arguments. It is now time to hear my opponent’s arguments. I look forward to the next round and wish my opponent the best of luck.

Citations:

The Holy Bible

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Commondebator

Pro

Thanks for your argument Con. I look forward to your arguments and lets make this big.

The Ontological argument
For a little history, the ontological argument was created by Anselm of Canterbury, René 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.

Rebuttals:

R.1 Perfection

One of my opponent’s main argument is that since perfection does not exist, god does not exist because his actions are not perfect. However, in defense 1-7 for Mulla Sadra, I have shown this is not the case. Since the state of “x” is singular, there is nothing to compare it to, therefore state of “x” is perfection. Even if we have a scale, the highest intensity of existence and perfection exists, therefore this is actually a favor for my argument. This simply brings down my opponent’s first point.

R.2 Morality

My opponent then argues how god is immoral because he knows the immoral things. To which I reply it is a fallacious claim. First of all, my opponent has not shown how lust and envy is immoral. We cannot use immorality defined by the Bible and even if we did, it would be irrelevant. I could go much deeper in regards to how morality does not exist, therefore it cannot be applied. However to give a brief description, nihilism is the default position. There is really nothing inherently right or wrong.

R.3 Subjective views of religion and Christianity

My opponent takes literal and objective views of the Bible to dictate the authority of this argument. This is unfair because religious views are subjective. We could take the main points of the Bible however Christianity is the following of Jesus Christ. As far as Christians are concerned even if you do not interpret the Bible literally, you can still be saved via Jesus. Using every definition of the Bible is unfair, because an individual can have different views of that Bible yet still follow Christ therefore being Christian. Also, since religious views are subjective my opponent cannot take one view that is biased towards his side and use it against me.

R.4 Free will

This is also part of R.3. My opponent claims that “According to Christians, personal beings have free will.” What? How is this in any way fair or relevant? You cannot take other people’s views that are not even stated in the Bible and use against me as I stated before. However, if the being knows everything it knows to avoid it’s choices. On top of that, it is up to the being to take the decision even if it right or wrong, which proves that god has free will. If right or wrong does not exist, then whatever god does that may harm humans is up to god, thus proving he has free will.

Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
Atheism_Debater

Con

Thank you for that response friend; it is now time for my response.

Rebuttal of Ontological Argument Anselm’s logic:

“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.”

There are flaws with this argument of “defining” God into existence. This argument makes the unsubstantiated assumption that things that exist are better than things that don’t exist. That’s a strange way to look at existence, are flying pigs more flawed than pigs?

Rebuttal of Ontological Argument Anselm’s logic II:

“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”

What if you substitute God out for an infinite number of things, (and change a few words to make it grammatically correct)?

By definition, this donut is an object than which none greater can be imagined.

So, this donut has to exist not only in imagination, but also in reality if you follow the steps of logic.

You can substitute in an infinite amount of things and you come up with absurd answers. When an argument starts producing absurdities, this argument needs to be thrown out. In reality, this argument is a fallacy.

Rebuttal of Mulla Sadra’s Ontological argument:

“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.”

This argument is a fallacy, because it defines existence as a property of God. You again define God into existence; a definition can only describe properties of things that exist. So what it amounts to is: If God existed, and thus had the properties described in his definition, he exists!

This is obviously absurd, therefore this argument is a fallacy.

Rebuttal of William Lane Craig and Alan Planting’s Ontological argument:

“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.”

The problem is; your conception of actual reality is only a conception, not reality itself. You also make the unsupported assumption that multiple realities exist.

Under the rules of this debate it said this,

“Second round will be for arguments only.”

My opponent then said,

“I accept sir”

Then my opponent goes on to post his rebuttals in the second round.

My opponent has broken the rules of the debate and given himself an unfair advantage throughout the entire debate, whether on purpose or not, my opponent has cheated.

I will not respond, or read any of the rebuttals for they are cheating.

Conclusion:

I have defeated all of my opponents arguments. I look forward to the next round and what my opponent will respond with. I would like to thank again my opponent for participating in this debate and wish him the best of luck!

Commondebator

Pro

Thanks for the reply con.

Defense of the Ontological Argument
Here is my defense of the ontological argument. Just a few things before I go any further, Con’s subtle bashing on my grammar made me little confused. Although I appreciate Con pointing my grammar to improve later, I would like to point out that those were phrases, not sentences, summarized from a few chapters of the Ontological Argument. Furthermore, I will elaborate the fact how every single of those arguments were not fallacies and how “absurdity” in my opponent’s point of view does not make it a fallacy.

R.1 Defense of Anselm I
Below quoting my argument of Anselm's logic, my opponent states

“There are flaws with this argument of “defining” God into existence. This argument makes the unsubstantiated assumption that things that exist are better than things that don’t exist. That’s a strange way to look at existence, are flying pigs more flawed than pigs?

I fail to see how this, in any way, is a rebuttal. My opponent declares the entire argument as “strange” and then leaves off with a question. Perhaps we will hear in the next round, on why it is strange. Here is why existence is greater than non existence. 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. Or, to answer my opponent’s question, flying pigs are more flawed than pigs because they do not exist, and the idea that they do exist is flawed.

R.1 Defense of Anselm II
Next lets look at my opponent’s reply substituting god with donut.

“By definition, this donut is an object than which none greater can be imagined.”

Well, that argument is clearly false since a donut is not a supreme being. Yes, substituting god with anything will make the Anselm’s argument false, only because you cannot substitute anything else besides a supreme being in the first place! My opponent argument makes no sense because he is substituting an object that is not a supreme being, since the argument is solely in regards to a supreme being!

R.2 Defense of Mulla Sadra
My opponent states that the argument is absurd since it defines existence as a property of god. The only problem is that he has not exactly told us why. Maybe we will hear this is in the next round.

“So what it amounts to is: If God existed, and thus had the properties described in his definition, he exists!”

I found my opponent very confusing since he is calling something that should be true, absurd. Let’s say that we have an item, Let’s call it item “A”. In order for item A to exist, it must have the properties X,Y,and Z. Now, lets say that item A, by definition possess the properties X,Y, and Z. Therefore, item A must exist since it posses the properties X,Y, and Z by definition alone. The same concept is with god if we take perfection and existence into play.

R.3 Defense of William Lane Craig and Alan Planting
My opponent briefly stated “The problem is; your conception of actual reality is only a conception, not reality itself. You also make the unsupported assumption that multiple realities exist.”

I believe that my opponent may have misinterpreted that argument. The point that I am trying to convey is, if god exists, then he exists in some possible place. Such as a planet or a part of the universe, etc. If god exists in a possible place, then he exists in all those possible places. If he exists in all the possible places, then he exists in reality, because reality is possible and within possibility.

Final remarks
Although I apologize for posting rebuttals in the second round, I really hope my opponent would read them this time and reply to them. My opponent claims that he defeated all my arguments, however I do not see how. Many of the times he called them absurd, therefore fallacy which does not exactly make much sense. Absurdity in my opponent’s point of view, does not exactly mean fallacy. Furthermore, he calls the arguments absurd for the pure reason of they appeared to be this way.
Debate Round No. 3
Atheism_Debater

Con


Rebuttal:


“Just a few things before I go any further, Con’s subtle bashing on my grammar made me little confused. Although I appreciate Con pointing my grammar to improve later, I would like to point out that those were phrases, not sentences, summarized from a few chapters of the Ontological Argument.”


I just read through my response again, I did not make any bashing of your grammar. The only thing I said that could be interpreted that way was this.


“What if you substitute God out for an infinite number of things, (and change a few words to make it grammatically correct)?


By definition, this donut is an object than which none greater can be imagined.”


I meant change my sentence to make it grammatically correct. Because if I substituted donut in it would be grammatically incorrect. I had to change being to object to make it grammatically correct, sorry for the confusion.


By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.


“I fail to see how this, in any way, is a rebuttal. My opponent declares the entire argument as “strange” and then leaves off with a question.”


That is not what happened at all. Read my rebuttal and you will see what I did.


“Well, that argument is clearly false since a donut is not a supreme being. Yes, substituting god with anything will make the Anselm’s argument false, only because you cannot substitute anything else besides a supreme being in the first place! My opponent argument makes no sense because he is substituting an object that is not a supreme being, since the argument is solely in regards to a supreme being!”


Ok, calm down there my friend. I did not mean that the donut is a supreme being, I meant that the donut is supreme, in that it is perfect. You could also substitute out donut for something more abstract, a living, neon pink, time-traveling, African American, rubber band, KKK member that wears Old Spice t,. And the argument still proves that this must exist. This argument gives off strange answers and should be thrown out.


“I found my opponent very confusing since he is calling something that should be true, absurd. Let’s say that we have an item, Let’s call it item “A”. In order for item A to exist, it must have the properties X,Y,and Z. Now, lets say that item A, by definition possess the properties X,Y, and Z. Therefore, item A must exist since it posses the properties X,Y, and Z by definition alone. The same concept is with god if we take perfection and existence into play.”


Let’s say that this living, neon pink, time-traveling, African American, rubber band, KKK member that wears Old Spice requires a rubber band, neon pink paint and Old Spice. Since all of these exist, then this being has to exist. This is obviously a stupid proposition, but according to your logic, this must exist. If you are willing to accept that this argument proves God, then you must be also willing to accept that this rubber band exists, or any other type of anything you can think of can exist.


“I believe that my opponent may have misinterpreted that argument. The point that I am trying to convey is, if god exists, then he exists in some possible place. Such as a planet or a part of the universe, etc. If god exists in a possible place, then he exists in all those possible places. If he exists in all the possible places, then he exists in reality, because reality is possible and within possibility.”


Oh, I’m sorry, I did misinterpret the argument, my bad.


You make the unsupported assumption that God must exist in some part of the universe. If you say something exists, you must prove it. Prove that God exists in some part of the universe, then you argument will hold water.


“Absurdity in my opponent’s point of view, does not exactly mean fallacy. Furthermore, he calls the arguments absurd for the pure reason of they appeared to be this way.”


I only said that once my friend, no need to make it a big deal. And I called it a fallacy because if the argument starts proving that time-traveling rubber bands exist, which is absurd, it should be regarded as a fallacy.


Conclusion:


I look forward to the result of this debate. I have enjoyed it thus far and thank my opponent very much for debating me.


Commondebator

Pro

Commondebator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
==================================================================================
>Reported vote: sengejuri // Moderator reviewed this vote and found it valid.

[*Reason*] The RFD voted on conduct for a forfeit. There was a forfeit. Judges are not obligated to vote according to what the debaters say in the comments section, so it's irrelevant that Pro asked voters to excuse the forfeit in the comments. Judges are not presumed to read the comments before voting, nor should they (so as to avoid being impermissibly swayed on arguments by arguments made outside the debate).
==================================================================================
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
I can not believe it. Wow, actually just give him conduct for such amazing sportsman ship .
Posted by Atheism_Debater 1 year ago
Atheism_Debater
guys my opponent postd his response in the comments ignore the ff please
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
I was about to post the argument with 12 seconds left but it counted as a forfeit
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
All my argument still stand, and my opponent fails to refute any of them, He drops the defense of Anselm I, and many of my rebuttals are simply quoted from my arguments, showing he failed to read them. My opponent drops all of my rebuttals in round 2. He said that they are cheating since I was not supposed to make those arguments and I apologize for that. However, I did say in the rebuttal of round 3 to refute those rebuttals of round 2, however he fails to do so. This means, my opponent"s argument fail to hold water. Furthermore, even if I had repeated those rebuttals in round 3, it would have been within character limits.
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
I should have said that object "A" implies that it has to be a supreme being and that object "A" contain X, Y, and Z, or contain the exact same properties of X, Y, and Z. Even if we do not take the idea of a supreme being, and take something common, the argument still stands. Such as, in order for salt to exist it must contain Sodium and Chlorine. (Or it must be a product of neutralization of an acid and a base, but that is not the point I am trying to convey).

If we take my opponent"s example, if we mix a "living, neon pink, time-traveling, African American, rubber band, KKK member that wears Old Spice" to make a new object, then yes. That object exists because you put the right ingredients to make the object. Similarly, by definition, we need reality and existence to be part of god. Since god is eternal, reality and existence are part of god.

R.3 Defense of William Lane Craig and Alan Planting
My opponent states

"You make the unsupported assumption that God must exist in some part of the universe. If you say something exists, you must prove it. Prove that God exists in some part of the universe, then you argument will hold water."

Ok, this part of my rebuttal is pretty self explanatory. Since god is within possibility because he does not break any laws of science, he exist in some possible world. The reason how I can prove this is because he is eternal. If he exists in some possible world that is within possibility, then he does exist in every possible place because he is eternal by definition.

Area "B" of the universe is unknown if it exists however is within possibility. Since god is within possibility, he exists in area B because area B and god are both within possibility. God must exist in that possible world, because he is eternal. Since he exists in that possible world, then he exists in every possible world that can be made up. Since he exists in every possible world, then he exists in reality because reality is within possibility.

Co
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
Thanks for the reply Con. I really enjoyed this debate and also look forward to the outcome.

R.1 Defense of Anselm I
For the entire argument for Defense of Anselm I, my opponent simply replied to one of my of quotes. Which was "I fail to see how this, in any way, is a rebuttal. My opponent declares the entire argument as "strange" and then leaves off with a question."

He then replied "That is not what happened at all. Read my rebuttal and you will see what I did."

He then drops the rest of my argument! He only quotes one part of my argument, (which was not even my argument) and he drops the rest! My argument in regards how "Flying pigs are more flawed than pigs" still stands.

To sum it up, my opponent completely drops my defense of Anselm. He has not replied to how the existing child is greater since he/she possess that trait.

R.1 Defense of Anselm II
This part of my opponent"s argument makes no sense whatsoever. We are not referring to the donut since it is perfect, rather assuming it is a supreme being. It being perfect therefore it is a supreme being is a complete misinterpretation of the argument. This argument is not in regards to perfection. The basis of the argument is that 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.

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.

This can be found in the defense of my argument, and is not in regards to perfection.

R.2 Defense of Mulla Sadra
I have to admit, I love my opponent"s humorous attacks at my argument. It really brightens up the day. I should have said that object "A" implies that it has to be a supreme being and that object "A" co
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
12 minutes, here I go
Posted by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
wohoo
Posted by Atheism_Debater 1 year ago
Atheism_Debater
K thanks, Im almost done
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sengejuri 1 year ago
sengejuri
Atheism_DebaterCommondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I slapped myself after reading through this whole debate only to find that Pro forfeited the last round - that would have saved me from muddling through all the head spinning meta-philosophy semantics, lol. As per the rules, Con wins by forfeit.