The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

That the Descartes Ontological argument is sound

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,550 times Debate No: 16071
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (2)

 

Illegalcombatant

Con

Sound argument = The argument is valid & All of its premises are true. [1]

Valid = An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion. It would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion [2]

--- Opening statement ---

"Descartes' ontological (or a priori) argument is both one of the most fascinating and poorly understood aspects of his philosophy. Fascination with the argument stems from the effort to prove God's existence from simple but powerful premises. Existence is derived immediately from the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being" [3]

--- Counter argument 1 ---

Pro syllogism is as follows (Note we agreed to what it would be before hand)

P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist
C: Therefore such a being must exist [4]

"Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion" [5]

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. In order for this argument to work it would have to prove that perfection actually exists. For example.....

1) Perfection actually exists (Insert justification here)
2) It is impossible to be perfect and not exist (Claimed by pro)
C: Therefore such a being must exist

But what reason do we have for accepting that "perfection" actually exists and isn't just something that exists only in our minds like the flying spaghetti monster ?

I look forward to Pros response.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[4] http://www.debate.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic)
larztheloser

Pro

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for yet another opportunity to argue this fascinating argument. Descartes would be proud of this little conversation we've been having for about three debates. My apologies also for being slower than usual with putting this up - I have been remarkably busy.

My opponent raises two objections:
1. My case is a non-sequiter
2. My case is does not show perfection exists

He justifies this with the following argument, which he claims a superior version to mine:
1) Perfection actually exists (Insert justification here)
2) It is impossible to be perfect and not exist (Claimed by pro)
C: Therefore such a being must exist

The problem with this is that premise one is clearly exactly the same as the conclusion, making the argument tautological. In fact, the other side of the established dichotomy between the existence and non-existence of perfection is disproven by premise two, making premise one meaningless and pointless. Therefore I dismiss that argument. Allow me to put premise 1 rather differently to avoid this problem...

1) A perfect being does not exist
2) It is impossible to be perfect and not exist
C) Therefore premise one is false

Premise 1 is an assertion that my opponent is right. Given the second premise, however, my opponent cannot be right. Since there are only two alternatives - either my opponent is right or I am - a perfect being must exist. It is noteworthy to say that premise two can be worked out from reason alone, as I justified in my first debate with my opponent.

First, is this a non-sequiter? Well, premise 1 and premise 2 cannot both be true. Therefore it follows that one is false. Since we can prove premise 2 but not premise 1, it follows that premise one is false. That is how the conclusion is not, in fact, a non-sequiter. If my opponent sees a hole in my causal links perhaps he would be so kind as to tell us exactly how the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Now on to the stronger contention of my opponent. My opponent claims that when I say "a perfect being does not exist" I am saying that the being does not exist but the perfection does. In fact, perfect as used here is an adjective - perfection cannot manifest without a being. Therefore the real existence of perfection is tied to the real existence of the being.

When I say that I am not currently hugging the invisible pink unicorn, I am not asserting the existence of the concept of being simultaneously invisible and pink. I am asserting the non-real-existence of that concept because I am asserting the non-real-existence of the invisible pink unicorn. The invisibility and the pinkness are inextricably tied up to the unicorn, and their existence is dependent on the other.

There is an assumption to this argument, which I will not deny, that God is defined as a perfect being. In saying that, I am not saying perfection or God (mutually reliant) exist. I am saying what God is with no regard for its existence. There is a difference between claim of existence and claim of attribution. Perfection, as an attribute, cannot exist in and of itself, just as "clean" cannot exist.

The beauty of it all is, then, that because perfection exists a perfect being exists, since the one cannot be without the other. Blue would not exist if nothing were blue in the world - it is because there are blue things that blue exists. Perfection, however, must exist because otherwise it would not be perfection. This is because of premise two. So there is only one link to make in order to meet my opponent's criteria for "valid" - I need to prove that something perfect cannot not exist (and therefore must exist).

To do that, I need to show that existence is a quality of everything that is perfect. Since perfect includes being better than everything else, existence must improve things. If existence makes something better, therefore, it must be a quality of perfection. When we say "make better" we imply that objects have value assignable on the basis of their attributes. However, in order for there to be any value assigned to an object, the object must exist. Non-existent objects have no value. Therefore perfection REQUIRES existence.

Seeing as my burden of proof, to substantiate my claim, has already been met, and I have answered my opponent's two opening questions, I will allow con to continue his case.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Assuming that Perfection exists in actuality

Pro says "1) A perfect being does not exist
2) It is impossible to be perfect and not exist
C) Therefore premise one is false"

Premise 2 assumes that perfection already exists, and then proclaims well its impossible to be perfect and not exist. Yeah its also impossible to be red and not exist cause non existence things don't have red or perfection or anything for that matter whether in an attribute or essence.

Without already assuming perfection exists, premise 2 is just stating that if something exists then its non existence is impossible.

Pro says "The beauty of it all is, then, that because perfection exists a perfect being exists,"

Where was the proof that perfection actually exists ? other than your own assumptions that it already exists.

Pro says "Blue would not exist if nothing were blue in the world - it is because there are blue things that blue exists. Perfection, however, must exist because otherwise it would not be perfection"

Flying invisible unicorns would not exist unless there were flying invisible unicorns in the world.....errr what ?

Going back to Pros first premise "It is impossible to be perfect and not exist"

"It is impossible to be perfect and not exist" = Perfection must exist

1) It is impossible for perfection not to exist = Perfection must exist
2) Therefore Perfection must exist

Which is the same as saying.........

1) Perfection must exist
2) Therefore Perfection exists

Circular reasoning.

Defining perfection and X into existence.

I'd like to go back to the original argument premise 1 which states "P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist"

What Pro is arguing that perfections non existence is impossible, but why is this the case ? Its only the case cause perfection has been defined as necessarily existent. ANYTHING that is defined necessarily existent by DEFINITION must exist.

I would like to draw strong emphasis to this statement by Pro "Perfection, however, must exist because otherwise it would not be perfection"

Lets be quite clear here, Pro has given something (in this case perfection) NECESSARY EXISTENCE, or to put in more crudely it MUST EXIST.

Trouble is you don't get to prove that something actually exists just be DEFINING it into existence, and you don't get to prove that something exists by describing it as something that MUST EXIST and thus its non existence is impossible.

X must exist otherwise it would not be X

1) It is impossible for X not too exist
2) Therefore X exists

Now consider this argument..........

"Perfection, however, must exist because otherwise it would not be perfection"

1) It is impossible for perfection not to exist
2) Therefore perfection exists

Concepts vs Actuality

Just because you can have the concept of something doesn't prove that thing actually exists.

Now what about if I have the concept of perfection ? sure no problem there. We are free to think what ever you like.

What if within that concept of perfection I have the concept of perfection as necessarily existent, that is too say it must exist ? Sure no problem there. We are free to think what ever you like.

What if within that concept of perfection I have the concept of perfection as necessarily existent and I claim it proves that Perfection actually exists ? Now we have a problem.

Your concept of perfection existing due to necessarily existing doesn't prove it actually exists any more than my concept of X existing due to necessarily existing proves that it actually exists.

I look forward to Pros reply.

larztheloser

Pro

In this round my opponent has really suddenly increased the number of contentions he offers:

1. It's also impossible to be red and not exist
2. Premise 2 is just stating that if something exists then its non existence is impossible
3. Circular reasoning
4. Defining perfection and X into existence
5. Concepts vs Actuality

While my opponent has run much of this past me before, I must say I'm impressed with how he managed to condense it all into one round. I shall now proceed to address all his concerns:

1. It's also impossible to be red and not exist
If something does not exist, can it be described as red? As I have stated, yes. Clifford is a big red dog. That's not a claim that Clifford is real. Yet it is a claim that Clifford is red. To go to a deeper level of analysis, does that mean Clifford is ACTUALLY red? Well, when we say actually, what we mean to say is within the realms of existence. The sentence "Clifford is a big red dog" says nothing about existence, only about color. So while we can claim that Clifford is red, we cannot claim that Clifford exists, based on that sentence alone. Therefore we cannot say Clifford is actually red. Is it possible, in this scenario, that Clifford the big red dog does not exist? Of course. Therefore it is perfectly plausible to say that one can be red and not exist, which obviously is the very opposite of what my opponent is saying.
Can the same be said of perfection? No. Perfection is in a different class to red in that red is an attribute, whereas perfection is a direction. To justify this, all I need to do is show that a claim of perfection can be logically connected to a claim of existence. I did this last round, when I provided unresponded-to analysis that perfection requires value, and things with value must exist.

2. Premise 2 is just stating that if something exists then its non existence is impossible

Let us revisit premise two:
: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist
Which can be restated as:
: If something is perfect it is impossible for it not to exist
It logically follows that within the class of existence, one or more things have the subclass "perfect." Therefore:
: If something exists it is possible for it to be perfect
Now lets look at what my opponent wrote:
: If something exists then its non existence is impossible
Let's get rid of that horrid double negative and we're left with:
: If something exists then its existence is possible
Versus
: If something exists then its perfection is possible
So basically this argument only works on the ASSUMPTION that everything that exists is perfect. I'd like to see my opponent justify that one.

3. Circular reasoning
Let us examine the line where my opponent thinks I have presupposed my answer:
: It is impossible for perfection not to exist
In case it wasn't already painfully obvious, this was not in the argument. The relevant premise in the argument read:
: It is impossible to be perfect and to not exist
As I argued in round one, perfection is an attribute. It cannot "exist" in and of itself - it must be tied to an object. When I say Clifford the big red dog, I do not mean to say "big" exists, rather, I mean that something big (and red and named Clifford and of the dog species) exists. This is, however, perhaps only a problem with my opponent's phrasing. For the sake of the principle of charity, let us suppose he had argued I had made a circular argument in saying it is impossible to be perfect and to not exist because it is logically equivalent to God must exist (and therefore God exists).
To make that claim, it must be knowable from that premise alone what the conclusion is. Thus the premise must contain an explanation as to why God is perfect. It does not offer this. Premise two is simply stating a general rule, premise one a specific fact situation and the the conclusion is just the rule applied to the facts. Simply put, this is Aristotelian deductive reasoning at its purest. Here is another example:
a) Clifford is a dog
b) It is impossible to be a dog and not be red
c) Therefore Clifford must be red

This is not illogical. C cannot be obtained without reference to the specific facts in a and the rule in b. The exact same form is taken by the Descartes Ontological. There is nothing circular about it because the conclusion does not include the specific facts, that God has the quality of perfection, only the general rule, that if something is perfect it exists. The general rule can be drawn out from the additional analysis I gave in point one of this round.

4. Defining perfection and X into existence
The question here is whether something can be said to have perfection by virtue of a definition. Put it another way, when I say Thomas the Blue Tank-engine, my opponent would argue that I have defined the color blue, tanks and engines into existence. However, this is a non-sequiter. Nothing about "Thomas the blue tank engine" suggests that Thomas is actually real. I could say Paul the wagauagonagible, but that doesn't mean Paul is actually real. As I have already stated time and time again, ascribing a property to something is different from ascribing existence to a property (which is impossible because properties cannot exist - "Clean exists" makes no sense). Wagauagonagible may be ascribed to something, but that doesn't make it anything more than a whole bunch of letters I typed on my keyboard a moment ago.
The real underlying question, I think, is how we can know that God must be perfect without reference to the definition. Well, what am I out to prove? That God exists. What is God? Initially my opponent gave me a list of God's attributes from which one could induce the property of perfection. I think that in common speech, when we say "God" perfection is at least implied, and the dictionaries are on my side. But these are all just definitions - and therefore obviously they can't be logically permissible. Or can they? I did not define God as being existent after all, so it is not contrary to the argument to use a definition. What makes a definition illogical? Can there even be an argument that does not rely on a definition? No. Arguments are a form of text, which is a type of constructed meaning. Definitions form the basis for all constructed meanings. Therefore there should be no problem with using them.
One more issue. Did I define God into existence? No. I did not define anything into existence. I used a rule to show that it is illogical to accept that God is perfect and God exists. Did I thereby show that God is perfect? No. This was an observation. You might ask what evidence I have for this observation. Well, we began by assuming God was a non-existent thought object (I justified this in my second argument with my opponent). In this case, then, God is what it is thought to be ... and when we say God what we mean is a perfect entity. In other words by observing our thought of God we are in fact observing the reality of God, because the thought of perfection must logically be connected to the idea of reality. This is the same logic as that behind Descartes' more famous line "cogito ergo sum."

5. Concepts vs Actuality
I've already dealt with this mostly, but allow me to give a few answers anyway. My opponent gives this construction of my logic:
a > I conceive of God [ n.b God not perfection - perfection cannot exist without an object as it is only a direction ]
b > I conceive of God as being necessarily existent
c > God actually exists

My opponent claims that c is jumping to a conclusion from b, that a conception of necessity does not show necessity. What makes a necessity true is the logic of the case. If there is a necessity, we know the alternative is false. Therefore my opponent's case here is not an argument - it is simply saying that if my case for why it is a necessity is not valid, then my argument is not valid. However, I think we already knew that.

Looking forward to next round!
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Is perfection an attribute or direction ?

Pro says "As I argued in round one, perfection is an attribute. It cannot "exist" in and of itself - it must be tied to an object."

Pro says "Can the same be said of perfection? No. Perfection is in a different class to red in that red is an attribute, whereas perfection is a direction."

So is perfection an attribute or direction, and what is the difference ?

Therefore such a X.............must exist

Pro says "In case it wasn't already painfully obvious, this was not in the argument. The relevant premise in the argument read: It is impossible to be perfect and to not exist"

Allow me to correct this, Pro says "P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist"

"P1: It is impossible (to be) perfect and not exist"

But what is the (to be) in this statement referring too ? Is this just a generalization that applies to anything ?

P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist
C: Therefore such a being must exist (A perfect being)

It is impossible to be perfect and not exist
Therefore such a world must exist ( A perfect world)

It is impossible to be perfect and not exist
Therefore such a number must exist (A perfect number)

It is impossible to be perfect and not exist
Therefore such an argument must exist (A perfect argument)

It is impossible to be perfect and not exist
Therefore such a (X) must exist ( A perfect (x) )

If Pro can conclude from his premise that a perfect being exists, what about other perfect things ? Like a perfect world, a perfect number, a perfect argument and a perfect (X).

Circular Reasoning

Pro says "P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist"

We can't just assume perfection exists (existing perfectly in its perfection of course) as Pro says ""Perfection, however, must exist because otherwise it would not be perfection"

Perfection doesn't have to exist, or anything else for that matter, just because you say it has to exist.

Pro says ""P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist"

It is impossible to be perfect and not exist = That which is perfect must exist.

1) It is impossible to be perfect and not exist = That which is perfect must exist
2) Therefore that which is perfect must exist

Cirular reasoning

Who's perfection ?

Pro says "In other words by observing our thought of God we are in fact observing the reality of God, because the thought of perfection must logically be connected to the idea of reality."

Pro makes claims that our idea of perfection corresponds to reality. So what happens when one persons idea of perfection is a little bit different than the other persons ? Why should Pros idea of perfection trump anyone else's idea of perfection ?

Do we now have lots of different perfections running around ?

I look forward to Pros reply.
larztheloser

Pro

Again I must thank con for his endless stream of objections. In this round we've seen:

1. Perfection as a direction vs as an attribute
2. Argument also proves other perfect things
3. Perfection is subjective

He also restates his point about circular reasoning without engaging with any of my rebuttal. This time he says my conclusion was "Such a being must exist." In fact, my conclusion is God must exist. You also need the specific fact situation that God is perfect. You'll also note that I've also used extra logic to prove premise two, and you haven't engaged with that either. I've already explained this in great detail above, so read before you post.

1. Perfection as a direction vs as an attribute
Sorry, probably should have talked about this earlier. For the sake of clearing this up with my opponent, when I refer to an "attribute" I refer to anything that can be attributed to an object. Therefore it is not an object by itself, but rather a quality of one or more objects. When I refer to a "direction" I refer to anything that one can be more of. For instance, furry is an attribute, and furriness is a direction. When talking about fur applied to an object, whether you are referring to the "attribute" of having fur or the "direction" of the fur quantity, depends on context. Perfection is never an attribute, and I made a mistake in my previous line - "As I argued in round one, perfection is an attribute" should read "As I argued in round one, perfection is a direction." I thought that would have been fairly obvious if you had read round one, but no matter. Perfection behaves just like the ultimate of anything - say infinity - in that it cannot be quantified and therefore cannot be attributed - one cannot say you are halfway to perfection, for example, as one might say your color is halfway to red on Newton's color triangle.

2. Argument also proves other perfect things
Ah, the good old perfect world argument (in a past debate one of my opponents used a perfect cookie). Wouldn't it be nice?
I have to admit at this point my use of the word "being" wasn't the greatest. I'm trying to find a more vague term than "entity." This is the flaw in my opponent's argument, that only God has the capability to be perfect because God is undefined. Recall that to define means to limit. A world, number, argument, and cookie can all be defined. A perfect thing, however, cannot be limited. These kinds of limitations also tend to impose subjective conditions on the objects - for instance, say a perfect world is free from disease (though even this is subjective). But what is a disease? God does not suffer from this problem because God is without limitations.
You might therefore argue that since sraliglibuqiweklejofonvekjisganelw is undefined it must exist. That is completely correct. However, everything undefined is just another word for God. Why? Because it is perfect and existent, and therefore equivalent since neither has defined additional properties. Therefore this possible counter-argument doesn't stand.

3. Perfection is subjective
My opponent claims that everyone has their own view of perfection. That's a very curious claim. The only way one can read it is that different people have different ideas of what omnipotence, omniscience and so forth are. There are "lots of little perfections running around" because there are lots of kinds of omnipotence etc. Oh really? Name two. I bet if I asked everyone who could possibly understand my speech to name me two kinds of omnipotence they could not do it. Why? Because there is only one kind of omnipotence - limitless power. There are simply no alternatives. If there were, my opponent would have presented some.
In summary, there is nothing subjective about omnipotence, omniscience, or omni-anything, so why should perfection be subjective? That's why I, as Pro, am proud to say that my idea of perfection is 100% consistent with yours! Nothing is subjective about it.

And now it's time for the FINAL ROUND!
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply

Pro conclusion is "C: Therefore such a being must exist"

Pro objects and claims "This time he says my conclusion was "Such a being must exist." In fact, my conclusion is God must exist"

I refer Pro to round 1 where their argument is.............

"P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist
C: Therefore such a being must exist"

3. Perfection is subjective

Pro says "My opponent claims that everyone has their own view of perfection. That's a very curious claim. The only way one can read it is that different people have different ideas of what omnipotence, omniscience and so forth are. There are "lots of little perfections running around" because there are lots of kinds of omnipotence etc. Oh really? Name two"

How about three ?

Between people of different faiths, or indeed between people of the same faith, the term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

1.A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.
2.A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency or negative omnipotence.
3.A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie). [1]

This refutes Pro claim that "In summary, there is nothing subjective about omnipotence, omniscience, or omni-anything,"

2. Argument also proves other perfect things

Pro says "This is the flaw in my opponent's argument, that only God has the capability to be perfect because God is undefined."

Pro says "The real underlying question, I think, is how we can know that God must be perfect without reference to the definition. Well, what am I out to prove? That God exists. What is God? Initially my opponent gave me a list of God's attributes from which one could induce the property of perfection. I think that in common speech, when we say "God" perfection is at least implied, and the dictionaries are on my side"

The reference to these attributes is a definition.

Also defining God as that which is undefined is self refuting, cause the claim that God is undefined is a definition of God as something undefined.

This refutes Pro claims about God being undefined

1. Perfection as a direction vs Perfection as an attribute

Pro says "when I refer to an "attribute" I refer to anything that can be attributed to an object. Therefore it is not an object by itself, but rather a quality of one or more objects. When I refer to a "direction" I refer to anything that one can be more of. For instance, furry is an attribute, and furriness is a direction. When talking about fur applied to an object, whether you are referring to the "attribute" of having fur or the "direction" of the fur quantity, depends on context"

In order for the direction of perfection to exist (like furriness) there needs to be an object that has the attribute of perfection (like there is an object that has the attribute of fur, for example a dog). As Pro has said " perfection cannot exist without an object as it is only a direction " [2]

But this is impossible, because according to Pro "Perfection is never an attribute"

This refutes any object having the attribute of perfection thus perfection as a direction can't exist.

1) Direction of perfection can only exist if there is an object with perfection (Claimed by Pro)
2) Perfection is never an attribute (Claimed by Pro)
3) Thus there is no "object" that has the attribute of perfection
C) The direction of perfection can't exist

As there is no object with perfection and there is no direction of perfection this refutes the claim "C: Therefore such a being must exist"

I thank Pro for debating me once again on this topic.

I ask the Vote go to the Con.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] This debate Round 2, Under the heading 5. Concepts vs Actuality
larztheloser

Pro

My opponent uses his final round to raise the following extra contentions:

1. Such a being vs God
2. Differences in interpretation of perfection
3. God=undefined is self-contradicting
4. "Having something" is a form of attributing

1. Such a being vs God
While my learned opponent correctly cites the Descartes argument, he fails to attack the case as a whole, which applies to God. Since he also acknowledges that in round one, he is in fact using the letter of the law and semantic reasoning to avoid having to actually engage with the Descartes argument. The Descartes argument will always be a case for God's existence because only God is such a being. That God is such an object was accepted by me, my opponent, and Descartes himself. Therefore there is no problem here other than in the expression.

2. Differences in interpretation of perfection
Astute readers will note that options one and two are really the same worded in two different ways. There is no exclusive element to either. What makes the third exclusive is that it imposes a limitation on perfect power to those things that have the nature of perfection. Trouble is, of course, that "the nature of perfection" is an arbritary construct that cannot be objectively defined, and so the third option is in fact totally meaningless. Therefore there is really only one option under three different names.

3. God=undefined is self-contradicting
The question is whether a reference to an entity not having a definition is in fact a definition. Well, obviously, yes. However, it is not a definition of that entity. It is a definition of that definition. The only paradox arises when one tries to translate the abstract concept of a definition to the thing it is defining - which, of course, is both illogical and absurd.

4. "Having something" is a form of attributing
OK, my opponent expands on this a bit, yet this is the causal link it all rests upon if you read it closely. Just because something has something does not mean that thing is an attribute. Remember my fur example? Saying God has perfection is akin to saying that cat has furriness. No, rather one says that cat has fur (the attribute). Furriness is how much fur one has proportionally to one's surface area. One possesses a level of furriness, but that is not the same as saying one has furriness. Therefore when one makes a claim about having/possessing something, it doesn't necessarily mean that this is an attribute.

Great. And now to summarize the debate.

My opponent has listed 12 unique objections in this debate. You can read them, and all of my comebacks, above. Ultimately what it comes down to is whether he has done enough to show a clear falsehood in the Descartes argument. After waltzing around with a plethora of different ideas from different scholars, I don't think he is any closer to undermining the Descartes than when he began. By the end he is resorting to mostly semantic counter-arguments and attempts to re-hash old ideas. I think I have dealt with all of my opponent's objections reasonably enough. Please take a moment to vote pro.
Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Okay, looks like I have a choice of people to debate now...
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
For instance, could God microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself cannot eat it?

Yes, I can prove that using set theory and at the same time show God is still omni-awesome.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Okay ... prepare yourself (you have about half a day to do so because I also need to write an essay on teamwork for uni)
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Yes please.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Sure. Shall I start it?
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Well if you going to only argue for one type of omi paradox (God being omnipotent is a contradiction and or paradox) then how about a 3 round debate on it ?
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Yes. I myself have argued for the counter before. And I know the counter to the counter.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Surely you know the counter to that type of argument ? :)
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Very common - it is logically impossible to break a limit, yet God must be able to. For instance, could God microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself cannot eat it?
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Hey larz, you mentioned you have an omi paradox argument, I wouldn't mind have a stab at it, whats the gist of the argument ?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
IllegalcombatantlarztheloserTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: "This is the flaw in my opponent's argument, that only God has the capability to be perfect because God is undefined. Recall that to define means to limit - this is a weak response, i understand the intent (this was a proposed refute of Anslem), however Pro completely misunderstood the argument by con in R1 (It is impossible to be perfect and not exist) - ans Con has BoP, 2 Pro
Vote Placed by Dmetal 5 years ago
Dmetal
IllegalcombatantlarztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 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 ran the floor and pro couldn't keep his arguments straight.