The Instigator
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

Resolved: The Ontological Argument is Sound

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4

Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 4/2/2011 Category: Religion Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period Viewed: 10,019 times Debate No: 15761
Debate Rounds (5)

130 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 3RU7AL 1 year ago
<em>"Premise (3): If a MGB exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world"</em>

This is the fundamental flaw in Pro's logic.

If it is possible that I (or anyone else for that matter) can imagine "a world" without an "omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent [sic]" being, then it cannot be true that "it [necessarily] exists in every possible world".

To go a step further, I would like to point out that it is logically impossible for any "being" to be omnipotent, omniscient, AND benevolent. Well, at least in <em>this</em> world. Which is enough to render "Premise (3)" moot.

I'm going to guess that Con failed to make this point.
Posted by warpedfx 7 years ago
nothing again?
Posted by warpedfx 7 years ago
the platinga ontological argument is worthless.

P1: It is possible that 8 is the last digit of pi
P2: by the law of mathematics if 8 is the last digit of pi it is true necessarily
p3: if it is possible that 8 is the last digit of pi it is true in a possible worlds
P4: by P2 & P3 it necessarily means that it is true in all possible worlds
P5: if 8 is the last digit in pi in all possible worlds it is the last digit in the actual world
.'.: 8 is the last digit of pi
Posted by maninorange 7 years ago
"How can anything conceive anything so vaguely characterized as "no greater conceivable"? It's a meaningless qualifier that adds nothing."
This is effectively my first objection. There can't be a "Most" without an established way of determining "more." There can't be a greatest without a greater. There can't be a greater without a coherent definition of "great."
Posted by warpedfx 7 years ago
anything...?
Posted by warpedfx 7 years ago
<Lets assume for the sake of argument that God exists. How can something contingent bring into being something like God? How can something contingent bring into being a being than which none greater can be conceived, which includes omnipotence?>
How can anything conceive anything so vaguely characterized as "no greater conceivable"? It's a meaningless qualifier that adds nothing.

<This is incoherent. IF God exists, then He exists necessarily. In fact, you've already tacitly agreed to this since you don't think something physical can bring something immaterial into being.>
Define "immaterial". If you consider "mind" to be immaterial, I can point to the brain being the physical powerhouse which its process essentially IS the mind.

<So IF God exists, He is necessary. If He does not, then necessarily, He does not exist.>
this is like saying it is possible that 8 is the last digit of pi. if it is true, it is true necessarily, and because of this it is true in all possible worlds, including the actual. Which you can similarly say for ANY number. 2 is possibly the last digit of pi, and if it is true it is true necessarily.. so on...

<YES. Especially since philosophers employ the laws of logic and deduction.>
Except how would you determine the soundness of the premises in the deduction?
Posted by ExNihilo 7 years ago
YES. Especially since philosophers employ the laws of logic and deduction. Plus, an argument does not have to be a proof to be rational.
Posted by warpedfx 7 years ago
here's an interesting question- can philosophy alone demonstrate ANYTHING to exist in the usual sense of the word?
Posted by ExNihilo 7 years ago
Lets assume for the sake of argument that God exists. How can something contingent bring into being something like God? How can something contingent bring into being a being than which none greater can be conceived, which includes omnipotence? This is incoherent. IF God exists, then He exists necessarily. In fact, you've already tacitly agreed to this since you don't think something physical can bring something immaterial into being. So IF God exists, He is necessary. If He does not, then necessarily, He does not exist.

"If it is possible that god exists, it doesn't lend that he therefore DOES exist in a possible world, but that his existence in a possible world is similarly possible. Watch the rest of the argument fall here."

No. You again, dont understand possible world semantics. Possible worlds are ways in which philosophers determine what is possible and necessary. They are ways the world MIGHT HAVE BEEN. So, again, unicorns do not in fact exist. But since they are possible, there is some possible world in which they would exist. Similarly, if God is possible, then, by definition, He exists in some possible description of reality. If He is impossible, He exists in no possible description of reality. Anything that is possible, has a possible world in which it exists. That is the nature of possible worlds semantics and modal logic. From this, everything else follows. So if God is possible, God exists.
Posted by warpedfx 7 years ago
<Yes, but only in the sense that we cannot know for certain that premise one is true. But if you concede it and deny the conclusion you are being irrational.>
Where have I conceded the first premise? I specifically made points against it, regarding how there's no reason TO accept it as well as the fact considering how the argument was supposed TO determine his necessary existence (so in a way this "argument" is really circular).

<You have no clue about this argument. Wow. NOWHERE does the argument say "possibly necessary in all world." This is what the argument says:>
Ah but you've reworded it- previously you said it is possible that god exists, and that if god exists he exists necessarily.

<1. It is possible that God exists
2. If its possible that God exists, God exists in some possible world (anything that is possible, exists in some possible world. A possible world is not the real world, it is the way the world might have been).>
Bzzzt. If it is possible that god exists, it doesn't lend that he therefore DOES exist in a possible world, but that his existence in a possible world is similarly possible. Watch the rest of the argument fall here.

<3. If God exists in some possible world, God exists in every possible world (this is true necessarily. A necessary being, by the definition of what necessity is, must exist in all possible worlds, not merely one)>
4. If God exists in every possible world, God exists in the actual world (our world is a possible world; it exists)
5. If God exists in the actual world, then God exists
6. Therefore, God exists.>
Essentially this argument is nothing more than "god possibly exists, therefore god exists". Garbage.

<I agree with this. But that you admit that you concede the premise as true and then deny the logic with which the argument functions means you are irrational.>
except I haven't actually conceded it. Show me where I have.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.