The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The Ontological argument for Gods existence

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,276 times Debate No: 15715
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)






If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.


Both sides of this debate have a burden to carry

I as the Con will seek to show that Pros ontological argument for Gods existence should be rejected.

My opponent as the Pro will seek to show that their ontological argument for the existence of God should be accepted.

Definition of God = Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover


So, I would like to argue against an ontological argument. What is an ontological argument for the existence of God you may ask ? for those that are unfamiliar with ontological arguments.......

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists [1]

Here is an example of an ontological argument.

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 it exists in every possible world.
4)If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5)If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

I will let Pro determine which ontological argument they want to argue for and defend, but I ask they post their ontological argument in the first round and that we stick to just one ontological argument of Pros choosing.

I look forward to Pros opening argument.




First off I would like to wish my oppenent good luck.
Okay. You are choosing the side of saying that God does not exist, but on what grounds are you getting this from. What are your facts proving that there is no greater being out there that created the universe and everthing we have today.

What created the beings that walk this earth? Evolution? Sure, but what created what we evolved from. Yes, the beings that walk this earth today could have evolved and changed from and earlier version but there is no definite proof that we came from microscopic organisms.

Also, where would the mighty universe around us come from? The Big Bang Theory is true, but it come from and infinite amount of nothing. What scientist in this great world we are in create something out of nothing? No one. There is proof every where around us proving that there is a God that made this all possible.
Debate Round No. 1


Pro says "You are choosing the side of saying that God does not exist"

No, I am choosing the side that is arguing that the ontological argument that God exists, (which you were meant to provide) should be rejected.

Even if I was to prove that your ontological argument should be rejected, it doesn't prove God doesn't exist, anymore than it would prove that the flying invisible unicorns don't exist.

There are some people that claim that there are or is good ontological arguments for the existence of God, this debate was me giving them an opportunity to back that up.

So Pro did you even read what I said in the first round ? cause judging by your response you didn't.

So Pro read up on what these ontological arguments are all about, then provide what you think is a good ontological argument for Gods existence.

If your not going to do that, at least tell me, so I can go debate with some one who will.


alligrace181 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


No ontological argument for Gods existence presented by Pro.


alligrace181 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Argument from ignorace for the win.


alligrace181 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Nothing to see here folks.


alligrace181 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
According to the sources I've checked, Ontological Arguments
are philosophical arguments about the existence, or nonexistence, of God.

Your main problem appears to be in your Meaning or Definition of God.
There's a huge difference between a Being, & a Supreme Being.
It's Impossible to define or put a meaning to the word God.
God is always BEYOND definition, meaning, etc.
As L. Ron Hubbard pointed out in his basic 1950 book on Dianetics,
Absolutes have to be considered logically unobtainable.
There can't be any Supreme Being.
Even I, a God/ Incarnation/ Avatar can't tell if there are
or are not Beings that are Greater than I am.
Posted by Wolfeye 3 years ago
I find that the initial assertion is incorrect. The Ontological Argument does *not* seek to prove "God" or any other specific being. You could insert "magical flying unicorn" so long as it is the maximally great being. That in mind, the definition of God presented is incorrect in the means that it doesn't need to include "morally good" or "personal" so long as it proves there is *a* maximally great being.

That being said, I still disagree with the Ontological argument.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
So geo, even though I may not have used the correct language, I think you and most understand what I was trying to say. I asked to the best of my ability to argue against a (type) ? of argument, as some call them ontological arguments.

If I wasn't able to use the exact correct language, you will have to forgive me. But since you understood what I wanted, then at least I got my point across.

Can you give me an example of how I should of ask for this type of argument. For instance if I asked for An ontological argument for Gods existence from the class of "priori" arguments is that acceptable ?
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
I feared this; this debate is going to suck.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 5 years ago
PRO, why don't you stay ON TOPIC. You didn't even address the Ontological Argument. You ignored it completely and rambled on about things that have nothing to do with the Ontological Argument for God.

CON, that's not what an Ontological Argument is. You said that it's a classification of arguments in which the conclusion is reached by reason alone without need for observation. The Ontological Argument is A argument, not a classification of arguments. Ontology is the study of being and existence, not what you claimed it was.

The name for arguments derived purely from reason are "a priori."
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Interesting a bit more refined.

I do not know how you would refute the Ontological argument unless you point to a logical contradiction of the first premise.
However, that first premise has clearly been established as "logically" consistent even by the Athiest community.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
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 Checkmark1 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: Forfeit