Debate Rounds (3)
Maximally - of highest quality, nothing higher.
Great - superior attributes.
Being - A something of existense.
The ontological argument that is to be argued by my opponent is listed below. Do not accept this debate if you do not intend to argue these points.
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 a maximally great being exists in every possible world.
4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6) Therefore maximally great being exists.
point 1) It is very possible that a being exists, now to me it is fact that one exists but I say very possible to indicate to those that do not believe get offended.
point 2) from the side of Christianity, and forgive me because I will probably discuss all points in this paragraph as I do tend to ramble. If by "some possible world" you are indicating possibly an imaginary world or maybe a world that may exist but has the probability of not existing entirely then by all means yes it is highly possible. depending on which religion you are referencing as I do not know how far the spectrum goes on all "Gods" in all religions, in Christianity our God does not exist on some possible world. He exists in Heaven which I know this occurs to many people but Heaven in my opinion is like a friend of mine said about God is "outside the space time continuum". In this case he does exist in all worlds considering God takes a huge role in part of them but does not inhabit the earth himself. His reach extends to all worlds.
As such, my opponent has not argued for the ontological argument at all, but that is okay, because this debate is actually structured so that I can start the debate without strawmaning.
The reason that the OA fails.
The OA applies a string of logic but fails to test the logic. If the same string of logic can be used to come to an opposite conclusion, then the logic has been disproven through contradiction. As such, I will disprove the OA's logic through this contradiction.
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 a maximally great being does not exist in any possible world.
4) If a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world, a maximally great being 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 maximally great being does not exist.
This uses the exact same logic to reach an opposite conclusion that is at odds with the original conclusion. This proves that the logic of the OA is completely faulty and as such, illogical.
Breaking this down one line at a time.
1) As there is no proof either way, this is clearly a possibility
2) If it is a possibility that it doesn't exist, then in some worlds where all the different possibilities are played out, the possibility of it not existing is played out. In such a case, there is no MGB in that world.
3) If a MGB does not exist in one or some worlds, then it can't exist in any. This is because a MGB would exist in all if it existed in any as per point 3 of the original OA. This cannot be denied without denying the original logic of the OA.
4) Obviously if the MGB doesn't exist in any world, it doesn't exist in ours, which is a part of the many worlds group.
5) This is just repetitive, but to keep the same format of the OA, I kept it.
6) The conclusion from this OA.
WARR10R_AN6EL forfeited this round.
WARR10R_AN6EL forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: All 7 points lost via forfeit.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.