The ontological argument for the existence of God is sound
Debate Rounds (4)
The resolution before us is that the ontological argument is sound: http://www.iep.utm.edu.... I will contend that this is false.
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." 
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.
I apologise for the inconvenience and hope that you meet a more formidable opponent than I on this subject in the future.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, but Con was doing well anyway.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.