All Big Issues
The Instigator
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

# The existence of a God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Magic8000
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 3/25/2013 Category: Religion Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 1,595 times Debate No: 31682
Debate Rounds (3)

 Con The burden of proof is on those who make the positive claim (pro).Report this Argument Pro I accept in playing Jesus' advocate. Get it?Report this Argument Con Since I don't have the burden of proof, I'll wait for my opponent to provide the evidence that God exists. I would suggest that my opponent actually define "God" first, so we both know what he's trying to prove.Report this Argument Pro I'd like to thank Con for giving the a chance to argue a different position I define “God” as the greatest conceivable tri omni being. Modal 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 it exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. “Possible World” mean a hypothetical reality. Not an actual planet. P1 justification: A “God” idea has no incoherence, and it's intuitively possible. The other premises follow Modal logic -an undisputed system of logic- and premises 2-4 themselves are undisputed. Transcendental Argument We know there's logical absolutes These absolutes are immaterial, absolute, and perfect The source of these absolutes must also be immaterial, absolute, and perfect Nothing in the universe fits (3) The immaterial, absolute, perfect, and transcendent source is God P1 justification Without logical absolutes, I couldn't write this, nor could anyone read this. These laws are The Law of Identity: Metaphysically, this law asserts that "A is A" or "anything is itself." For propositions: "If a proposition is true, then it is true." The Law of Excluded Middle: Metaphysically, this law asserts "anything is either A or not A." For propositions: "A proposition, such as P, is either true or false." We also refer to such statements as "tautologies" The Law of Non-contradiction: Metaphysically, this law asserts:: "Nothing can be both A and not-A." For propositions: "A proposition, P, can not be both true and false." [1] These form the basis for rational discourse. P2 Justification We don't find these in nature. Not in atoms, not under rocks, not on the Sun. They are just properties of maternal. If they were dependent on our universe, we would find them in what's in the universe. We know they're absolute, if we travel 1 million light years in the universe, they still would be true. If we go 7 billion years into the past, they're still true. Thus they must be absolute and perfect. P3 Justification Follows from 2 P4 Justification Same arguments can be used in P2. If the universe didn't exist, the absolutes would. It would be true that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time. P5 Justification Until Con gives us a source that fits these things and isn't God, the conclusion stands. Report this Argument Con My opponent is making assertions without evidence. 1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. True. I agree 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. WRONG: Just because something is possible, doesn't mean that it is real. It either could be real, or it could be just possible, but not real. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. IF it exists, yes, but there is no proof that it does, indeed, exist. It may be possible, but that doesn't prove it actually does exist. 4. If it exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. Yes, IF it exists...but, again, IF isn't proof that it DOES exist. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. It exists, IF and only IF it exists. There is no proof that it does exist. My opponent wants to assert that everything possible is also real. There's no evidence for that. Now for the Transcendental Argument. My opponent wants to assert, "The immaterial, absolute, perfect, and transcendent source is God". Again, that's a claim without evidence. How can anyone claim it is God? It is possible that the source could be naturally accruing. Where is the EVIDENCE that the source is God. That's just a claim without evidence. I also want to point out that logical absolutes don't prove there is a God. It just proves there are logical absolutes, which also can be naturally occurring without a God. My opponent wants to assert that "We don't find these in nature." We know for a fact that the natural Universe seconds after the Big Bang, did not have the same properties and laws as it does today. It is possible, that the Big bang itself is the immaterial, absolute, perfect, and transcendent source, in which case, it DOES happen in nature. Again, there is no evidence either way. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim. My opponent is making assertions without evidence. The fact that other options, besides a God, are also possible, proves that God may not be the answer. The doubt for a God outweighs the assertion for a God, due to the lack of evidence for a God. My opponent has also attempted to claim "If the universe didn't exist, the absolutes would" Where is the evidence for that? There is no way to examine a situation without a Universe. Without a way to get demonstrable evidence for such a claim, it can't be used as a true fact. What my opponent has done is to make several claims without being able to prove them. There is no evidence that: 1. "If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world." 2. "The immaterial, absolute, perfect, and transcendent source is God". 3. "If the universe didn't exist, the absolutes would" Since I do not have the burden of proof, and my opponent lacks the evidence for his claims, I will declare that my opponent has not been able to prove the existence of God.Report this Argument Pro Modal Ontological Argument Pro misunderstands the argument at premise 2. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. WRONG: Just because something is possible, doesn't mean that it is real. It either could be real, or it could be just possible, but not real. The premise is not “If it is possible God exists, he exists in reality.” The premise is “If it's possible God exists, then he exists in some possible world.” Pro missed the word “possible world”. If you agree with P1, then you inescapably agree with P2. Because P2 is basically saying the same thing, but moving a little further. If it's possible that God exists, then he exists in a possible world (hypothetical reality). We weren't even at the real world yet. The argument went unrefuted and was misunderstood by Pro. My opponent wants to assert that everything possible is also real. That isn't what the argument is saying. It can only be true if it's maximally great. You can't flip the argument to something else, since nothing else can have the property of being maximally great other than God and thus can't necessarily exist. You state something such as a maximally great island exists and make an OA argument from there. However, the argument would fail in P1, since a maximally great island can't exist because it has space. If something has space it can't be maximally great. TAG My opponent wants to assert, "The immaterial, absolute, perfect, and transcendent source is God". Again, that's a claim without evidence. That's the conclusion. I said that after I gave the arguments for it. I just didn't claim it without giving reasons for believing it. You can't just quote mine my conclusion and say it's my argument. Pro states We know for a fact that the natural Universe seconds after the Big Bang, did not have the same properties and laws as it does today. First, this is uncited. Second, Pro contradicts himself right after It is possible, that the Big bang itself is the immaterial, absolute, perfect, and transcendent source The Big Bang couldn't be the source, as if it didn't have the same properties and laws, it wouldn't be absolute. It's also hard to say the Big Bang was perfect, research shows the Big Bang was chaotic from the start [1] [2]. Far from perfect. The Big Bang would've been a part of the universe, and therefore not transcendent. My opponent has also attempted to claim "If the universe didn't exist, the absolutes would"Where is the evidence for that? Right after I said that. “It would be true that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time.” Also the evidence was also in the P2 justification. The absolutes weren't shown to be found in nature, it was only argued that they're a product of nature. Again, we should find them in nature if this was true. Pro ignores all this and still claims I gave no evidence. Conclusion *Pro misunderstands the ontological argument and didn't refute it *Pro keeps quote mining my conclusions and stating I gave no evidence *Pro failed to give a natural source of the logical absolutes. Thanks, let the voting go! Report this Argument
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
@makhdoom5 You debate to win. You read to gain knowledge.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
qopel.
dear bro.
why you always try to win.
i think you should love humanity.
and try to share knowledge and get knowledge.
who win who loss desent matter.
you dont see who guy lost for the same debate and some win.
i depend on knowledge.
so learn from both.
you get what is truth.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
Colleges don't like it because its not accurate. Duh!
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
This just means some collages don't like wikipedia. It says nothing about the accuracy and is an appeal to authority.

If the OA is flawed because it's relying on human perception, then that's self refuting because that response was based on human perception.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
The Ontological Argument, relying as it does on human perception, is thus inherently flawed, and meaningless.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
Wikipedia can not be used on college papers. Britannica can.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
No it's not. Since you already agreed with premise 1. Wikipedia is just as accurate as Britannica

Saying wikipedia isn't always right is the logical fallacy of poisoning the well. Wikiepida was wrong here therefore it's probably wrong here

A debate is a performance. If I go into a debate and just say "hahah I win his arguments suck" I would lose.
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
A tautology in this context is a logical fallacy.
Wikipedia isn't always right.

I didn't know a debate was a performance.
They are debating on Broadway stages?
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
The voting isn't "What arguments are the best" It's "Who made most convincing arguments". If someone fails to debunk them, it's not that the argument is invalid, it's the performance of the one who tried to debunk them. And a Tautology isn't always fallacious.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by qopel 4 years ago
In my debate I made it clear that
There is no evidence that:
1. "If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world."

A maximally great being does not need a world to exist in.

The RFV's that claim that I did not dispute the Modal Ontological Argument are wrong.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.