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

The ontological argument for the existence of God is sound

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: 12/3/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 721 times Debate No: 41632
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




The ontological argument attempts to reason from a prior truths that God exists. A basic structure of the ontological argument can be found here:

The resolution before us is that the ontological argument is sound: I will contend that this is false.


The concept of ontology and its relation to the existence of God is no doubt sound, not for its stipulation as a concept, but what that concept entails. It establishes that there is a God, based on priori knowledge, but where we can see that significance is laid in mankind's pursuit in defining what God is, whether he be instituted in the polytheistic deities of Norse mythology, or incarnated in man Jesus Christ. In this sense, it has allowed us, right from the stone age, to define what God is and, as such, our understanding of him, however flawed, has evolved in time and according to our respective cultures. Returning to Norse deities, their concept of God stemmed much from their warlike society. In Feudal Europe, God's will was vested in the separation of those who fought (the nobles), those who taught (the clergy) and those who worked (the peasantry). Now, in today's society we utilise science to understand what God is in far more material terms than the sanctity that preceded it and despite atheistic beliefs one cannot contend that the universe, existence even, has its own observable intelligence and it is that intelligence which establishes that there is God, whether he be Zeus or a deistic watchmaker. Furthermore, we all believe in God, whatever is his definition to us.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Pro for agreeing to debate this very interesting topic. I hope it will be enlightening for both of us.

Per the link I posted in Round 1, a sound argument argument is one in which the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, and the premises (and therefore the conclusion ) are true. "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound." [1]

This means that in order to prove the resolution before us, Pro needs to demonstrate that the conclusion of the ontological argument follows logically from the premises, and also that the premises are true. As far as I can tell, Pro's case has not met either condition.


Pro begins by saying "The concept of ontology and its relation to the existence of God is no doubt sound, not for its stipulation as a concept, but what that concept entails." By saying that that the argument is "no doubt sound", Pro has essentially begged the question at hand. He continues with the sweeping generalization that the argument "establishes that there is a God." Again, he needs to show exactly how the argument does this.

The rest of what Pro argues has almost nothing to do with the ontological argument. He points out that mankind's understanding of God has evolved, but this does nothing to support the ontological argument. He also argues that we all believe in God, regardless of how we define him. Three points here: 1) Are we to presume that all atheists are either liars or hopelessly confused about their own beliefs? What evidence is there for this? 2) The fact that everyone believes something doesn't make it true. If everyone believed the world was flat, would that make it true? 3) Even if all of this were true, nothing is being said here that establishes that the ontological argument is sound.

One last point. It seems that Pro has argued that God exists and that therefore the ontological argument must be sound because it entails God's existence. If God exists, however, it does not follow that the ontological argument is sound. The Pythagorean theorem is true, but that doesn't make the following (and clearly fallacious) argument sound: My dad is smart, and he believes the Pythagorean theorem is true, therefore the Pythagorean theorem is true.


Multi-Wargasm forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Since Pro has forfeited round 2, my arguments still stand. I will refrain from making any further arguments until Pro has responded to my rebuttal in round 2. The ball is in pro's court.


I believe that I cannot logically argue my platform and forfeit the debate.

I apologise for the inconvenience and hope that you meet a more formidable opponent than I on this subject in the future.
Debate Round No. 3


There was no inconvenience; I accept the apology.

Since Pro has chosen to forfeit the round, please vote Con. Should anyone be interested in arguing that the ontological argument for God is sound, let me know in the comments, and I will be happy to debate the issue.


I'm batman...
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by raymaster 3 years ago
Debate, lynching, what's the difference right? But seriously, I sound a lot meaner than I really am.
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 3 years ago
jesus christ mate. this is a debate, not a lynching! but i like your style.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
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: Forfeit, but Con was doing well anyway.