The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Modal Ontological Argument Is Unsound

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 3 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,069 times Debate No: 40972
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (86)
Votes (3)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world
P5: A maximally great being exists in the actual world
C: A maximally great being exists

I believe that the argument is unsound. The burden of proof will be shared (my opponent must show the argument sound).

First round for acceptance.
InVinoVeritas

Con

I accept, you heretical scum. ;)
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro



Introduction


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I take his introduction remarks to be in jest, so I don't view that as a conduct violation. In this discussion, I will show why the modal ontological argument is not sound. My opponent must not
only knock down my arguments, but present a case of his own for the soundness of the modal ontological argument.


Begging The Question


"This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact."[1]


"Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true."[2]



I am going to show that the modal ontological argument entails question begging on the arguments behalf. Thus, it is fallacious and invalid. If it is invalid; it is not sound.

Argument

P1: The proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a standard of greatness exists


P2: If the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a standard of greatness exists, the standard of greatness the proposition assumes exists is a maximally great being


C: Therefore, the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes that a maximally great being exists


- The Validity Of My Argument

The argument is clearly logically valid. A entails B. If A entails B, B entails C. Therefore, A entails C. Similarly, if a premise entails the assumption that a standard of greatness exists, and that standard of greatness that exists has to be God; the premise entails the assumption that maximally great being exists.

- Defending P1

Defending P1 is easy, as the proposition in question posits possible "greatness". Without a standard of greatness that exists the proposition is meaningless and arbitrary. The proposition self-evidently assumes a standard of greatness (as proponents attribute omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence to greatness).


- Defending P2

P2 is true because if the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" assumes a standard of greatness exists, and it is not a maximally great being that is being assumed as the standard, then what is being assumed is that a maximally great being does not exist. Why? Well, if a maximally great being did exist, then he would be the standard of greatness; not whatever else is being assumed! If he doesn't exist though, then he is not possible (if he was possible, then we would exist). Thus, if the standard of greatness the proposition in question assumes is not a maximally great being, then the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" both assumes:

(i) A maximally great being is possible
(ii) A maximally great being is not possible

That is a self-refuting proposition. The only option to avoid this is to posit that a maximally great being is the existing standard that the possibility premise of the Ontological Argument presupposes (Law of Excluded middle). Thus, P2 has to be true or else the Theist is required to admit that the proposition "it is possible that a maximally great being exists" is contradictory.


- Conclusion

The conclusion follows necessarily. The argument begs the question, and is unsound.

Summary

The resolution has been negated.

Source

[1] Garner, B.A. (1995). Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Oxford Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Oxford University Press. p. 101
InVinoVeritas

Con

"The burden of proof will be shared (my opponent must show the argument sound)."

This debate is a trap; it is an automatic loss for Con, because a burden of proof fallacy is set as the basis of it. See the comments.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Pro doesn't seem to know what a fallacy is. In debate.org, the burden of proof is not shared unless specified in the rules. I specified a shared burden it in the rules. Therefore, the BoP is shared. The only one who made the error in reasoning was my opponent by accepting this debate knowing the burden was shared. If you accept a debate knowing the rules, and then complain about the rules after; that is just stupid.
InVinoVeritas

Con

This debate was structured to be an automatic win for Pro, based on its BoP standards. (See comments)

Congratulations, RT! Now we can see how you have such a high win percentage, despite being such a low-quality debater! :)
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro


The BoP was shared, that means the rules were completely fair. Pro is just a cry baby, 
and doesn't know how the BoP works

InVinoVeritas

Con

For the actual debate, go to the comments, where you can see Pro try (and fail) to justify his BoP rule.
Debate Round No. 4
86 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Shared BoP's are common on this site. Next time you don't like it, don't click the "accept" button.... Not hard.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
If you are going to complain about having to show an argument sound, you shouldn't be on this website. This is for people willing to defend the validity of their arguments.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I had to show the argument unsound, you had to show it sound. That is fair... I honestly think your mother dropped you on the head as a baby to think the debate was unfair.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
*Oh, but we all know you cannot read, so you probably didn't even see the rules. When you learn to read, then come back child.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"I give up. You're utterly hopeless."

The only one hopeless here is you with your utterly fallacious arguments, and the lack of willingness to pay attention to what is being typed to you.

"You are misusing terms now (e.g., "fallacy of presumption") and are creating hilarious strawmen. "

Not at all. If you present an argument and just presume it to be true without support, that is a fallacy of presumption. Thus, I represented your argument correctly and did not straw-man it at all.

"Despite your blatant ignorance, I hope you have realized why splitting the BoP with Con here is absurd (despite your being to stubborn to admit it.)"

What was absurd was challenging the BoP after accepting the debate. If you didn't like the rules, why accept them? That just shows even more that you don't know how to pay attention. This probably explains why you haven't picked up on why you are wrong yet. I'm sure it will come to you if you think hard enough.

" I'll just make sure to avoid entering debates with you in the future; it's no fun when people sneakily (or obliviously) put rules into play that make the debate unfair and silly."

The BoP was shared, so we had the same burden of proof; it was fair. Crying about it like a little girl is just ridiculous when the burden of proof was shared (so it was fair), and you accepted the debate knowing the rules. This is really a huge fail on your behalf sir...

"Unfortunately, sometimes you just have to let some of the low-IQ DDOers fall through the cracks. That's what I'll have to do here."

Then all you are doing is letting yourself fall through the cracks. Only someone with a low IQ would say a shared burden was unfair AFTER accepting the debate and reading the rules. Oh, but we all know you cannot read, so I probably didn't even see the rules. When you learn to read, then come back child.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
I give up. You're utterly hopeless. You are misusing terms now (e.g., "fallacy of presumption") and are creating hilarious strawmen. Despite your blatant ignorance, I hope you have realized why splitting the BoP with Con here is absurd (despite your being to stubborn to admit it.) I honestly can't help you at this point. I'll just make sure to avoid entering debates with you in the future; it's no fun when people sneakily (or obliviously) put rules into play that make the debate unfair and silly.

Unfortunately, sometimes you just have to let some of the low-IQ DDOers fall through the cracks. That's what I'll have to do here.

Goodbye and good luck!
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"The argument, as you posed it in the first round, is in a form of valid logic. What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. "

It makes perfect sense. I presented the argument, then showed it matched up to a valid form of logic.

"Rephrasing the argument does not put it in a more "valid" form--nor does it contribute to a greater "validity" of the argument, as defined below."

Learn how to read. I will say it AGAIN:

"It doesn't make it more valid, it just shows it to be valid if you can show it matches with a valid form of logic." - Me

"You have not explained AT ALL how Con could, even in theory, supported the "soundness" of the proposed argument (MOA)--"

Yes, I have (countless times, but your reading skills are horrible). You show the argument valid then show the premises true. That's how you support the soundness This is just embarrassing for you lol

"You have made a complete fool of yourself. Good work."

You endorse a fallacy of presumption, and commit the straw-man fallacy over and over again, and demonstrate a complete lack of sufficient reading skills. Trust me, the only one making a fool of themselves here is you. Congratulations...
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
support*
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
"Of course, but unless you translate it into a known form of valid logic, you haven't proven your argument valid."

The argument, as you posed it in the first round, is in a form of valid logic. What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. Rephrasing the argument does not put it in a more "valid" form--nor does it contribute to a greater "validity" of the argument, as defined below.

You have not explained AT ALL how Con could, even in theory, supported the "soundness" of the proposed argument (MOA)--and you have made a complete fool of yourself. Good work.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
As I said, not showing it valid would be a fallacy of presumption.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
Rational_Thinker9119InVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro justified his share of the BoP, and Con didn't answer his case. Con failed to justify his portion of the BoP. As for whether or not this debate is a trap, Con should have been more careful when accepting this debate. I don't know if it's a trick, as he argues, but this is a lesson in reading the fine print either way. Arguments Pro.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Rational_Thinker9119InVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Pro clearly wins this argument as he presented arguments why the ontological argument is unsound as a proof for a god. The way that Con refused to accept the burden of proof while accepting the debate is in my opinion bad conduct, however the debate degenerated after round 2 for both debaters and so I give no conduct points. Sources point is also shared as no sources were provided in the debate,although they were also not necessary for this debate. The better grammar point goes to Pro for writing in a concise manner in his opening remarks.
Vote Placed by Oromagi 3 years ago
Oromagi
Rational_Thinker9119InVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro since Con refused to engage. I'm not crazy about shared BoPs myself, but Pro was sufficiently explicit in the invite. Since he accepted, Con's only polite recourse was to beg for permission to withdraw from Pro. Prolonged bickering in comments did nobody any favors and I exclude them from any voting consideration. Args to Pro since he presented one in all earnestness and was ignored. Sources to Pro since he used one.