The Instigator
JakeF4639
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
ATCKyle
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

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 2 votes the winner is...
JakeF4639
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/15/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 823 times Debate No: 38964
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

JakeF4639

Pro

This is my first time debating here, so I would like to debate one of my favorite arguments for the existence of God, the ontological argument.
Rules: Round 1 is for accepting the debate, Round 2 is for opening statements, Rounds 3 and 4 are for rebuttals, and Round 5 is for closing statements. Also, correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation are very much appreciated.
I very much look forward to an interesting and civil debate.
ATCKyle

Con

As per the stated rules of round #1, I'll simply state that I accept the debate. Looking forward to everything "a priori" thinking has to offer. ;)
Debate Round No. 1
JakeF4639

Pro

I would like to thank you for accepting my challenge. Let's have a good debate, and may the best man win.
(By the way, if it sounds like I am over explaining everything and come across as condescending, that is not my intent. I merely wish to ensure that all readers of our debate fully understand the terms we use.)

First, if God does exist, he could be defined as a maximally great being, that is, there is no possible conceivable being that would be in any way greater than God. From this assumption, I use a version of Alvin Plantinga's formulation of the 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 all possible worlds.
4) If a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world.
5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then it exists.
6) Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

In premise 1, the kind of possible that I am using is metaphysical, not epistemic possibility. Metaphysical possibility refers to whether something is actually possible while epistemic possibility refers to what is consistent with what we know. For example, an incredibly complex math equation that we cannot grasp has the epistemic possibly of being true and the epistemic possibly of being false, since we are uncertain of its truth, but the equation itself, as a part of mathematics, is necessarily either true or false. Likewise, our uncertainty of a maximally great being's existence does not change the fact that it must be either necessary or impossible.

In premises 2-4, when I say possible world, what I mean is a way of describing how reality might have been. For example, there are possible worlds in which Mitt Romney won the presidency. Possible worlds does not mean other universes. For something to exist in no possible worlds, it must be logically incoherent, like the concept of a square circle or a married bachelor.

In premise 3, it must exist in all possible worlds because a being that exists in all of them is greater than one that exists in only some; therefore, since we are talking about a maximally great being, it must exist in all of them.

According to this logic, if it is even possible that God exists, then he must exist.

Source: Reasonable Faith, Dr. William Lane Craig
ATCKyle

Con

ATCKyle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
JakeF4639

Pro

Well, I am now not sure what to do. I have nothing further to add to my argument. It occurs to me that I perhaps should not have held you to making an opening statement, though you did accept the debate after reading the rules. I don't really know. I hope to hear from you this round.
ATCKyle

Con

ATCKyle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JakeF4639

Pro

Well, there isn't much point in saying anything more now.
ATCKyle

Con

ATCKyle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
JakeF4639

Pro

Well, maybe my next debate will be more interesting. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate, though I would have prefered to have heard his ideas about the topic. Vote Pro.
ATCKyle

Con

ATCKyle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Send me a challenge. I'll debate you on the argument, and I wont' forfeit.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
JakeF4639ATCKyleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited. He did post at least SOMETHING, so I didn't award S&G, though I was sorely tempted. Pro only used one source, so that didn't seem worth giving points for. But conduct for the forfeits (obviously) and arguments for the utterly unrebutted case. As always, happy to clarify anything in this RFD.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
JakeF4639ATCKyleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF