The Instigator
Thomistic_Calvinist
Pro (for)
The Contender
SJM
Con (against)

The Ontological Argument Proves that God Exists

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Thomistic_Calvinist has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 181 times Debate No: 93282
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Thomistic_Calvinist

Pro

I have done a previous debate on the argument from motion and would like to see how things go with the ontological argument. Ontological arguments are arguments that argue for the existence of God based on the intelligibility of (in classical Anselmian arguments) or the possibility of God's existence (in contemporary modal arguments). I will be arguing in the vein of contemporary modal arguments, particularly presenting that of Robert Maydole. Maydole presents what he calls the "Modal Perfection Argument." The argument is as follows:

M1. A property is a perfection only if its negation is not a perfection
M2. Perfections entail only perfections
M3. The property of being supreme is a perfection

We may argue for the truth of the premises as follows:

-M1 is true because it is better to have a property than not only if it is not better to not have that property than not
-M2 is true because it is always better to have that which is a necessary condition fir whatever it is better to have than not

M3 may be argued in the following way:

M3.1. For every z, all of the nontautological essential properties entailed by z are prerfections if and only if the property of being z is a perfection
M3.2. Every nontautological essential property entailed by the property of being supreme is a perfection
M3. The property of being supreme is a perfection

We may deductively prove that the possibility of a supreme being existing implies its existence by the following:

http://imgur.com...

Due to M1-3 we have warrant to suppose that 1 is more plausibly true than its negation. The onus is now on con to show that the argument is logically flawed or is subject to parody.
SJM

Con

Define perfection- A property which is better to have than not

My opponent starts off with M1, which is saying that something existing is perfect, if its negation is not a perfection, but if I took the example of both Omniscience and Zero Knowledge, anyone can see that one complement negates the other. But Omniscience and Zero Knowledge, are both either perfect or not perfect. Therefore the assumption my opponent has made is refuted. This should be enough for my opponent"s whole argument to be refuted, but I will go even further.

M2 states that perfection entails perfections, now if my opponent claims for that to mean perfection is perfection, then that"s meaningless but if my opponent is saying that whatever is the properties of perfection, is perfection then that is unsound. There are a bunch of counterexamples to this, for example something that is totalitarianism(absolute power), entails corruptness, yet corruptness is not perfection.

M3 basically states that being supreme is perfection in the god sense, but with being omniscient, someone can not enjoy mysteries. Therefore it is not perfection.

Next set

"M1 is true because it is better to have a property than not only if it is not better to not have that property than not"

This is basically saying something is better if it"s better which in no way proves the M1.

"M2 is true because it is always better to have that which is a necessary condition fir whatever it is better to have than not"

It"s not better, but it is necessary. This statement my opponent made would mean that something is better if it makes something exists, than if it were not to exist. Which is not true becausse for some things it"s better for something not to exist.

And I'm sure everything I have previously said suffices for why M3 is flawed.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.