The Instigator
Topaet
Con (against)
The Contender
IKNOWBEST12
Pro (for)

The ontological argument for the existence of God is sound

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Topaet 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: 12/11/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 215 times Debate No: 105738
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Topaet

Con

I will be arguing that the ontological argument for God's existence is not sound and therefore does not prove the existence of God. You can choose one of the 3 different ontological arguments that I have provided.

Sound = A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all its premises are true.

Valid = 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. [1]

Rules:
1. External links may not be used as arguments, only as sources.
2. Please refrain from using ad hominem arguments and/or logical fallacies.
3. The first round is for the rules/agreeing to the debate and choosing the argument you want to debate about, the second for the opening arguments/rebuttals, and the third round for closing statements. The third round is to be used for rebuttals and conclusions only; no new arguments.
4. Do not forfeit.
Please do not accept the debate, if you do not intend to abide by the rules.
Good luck and have fun in the debate!

Anselm's Proslogion 2 ontological argument:
P1: God is that than which nothing greater can be thought of.
P2: It is greater to exist in the mind and reality than just in the mind.
C1: God must exist.

Anselm’s Proslogion 3 ontological argument:
P1: God is that than which nothing greater can be thought of.
P2: It is greater to exist necessarily than to exist contingently.
C1: God must exist necessarily.

Descartes' ontological argument:
P1: God is perfect.
P2: Existence is a predicate of perfection.
C1: God must exists.


[1]: http://www.iep.utm.edu...

IKNOWBEST12

Pro

So I see you may not believe in God? That's very sad. In my opinion we need no proof for we should already know that God is real. But you obviously see life in a scientific eye and seek proof of his existence.
1.The bible. God told Moses to right the bible. AND I know you want proof of Moses but lets take this too Jerusalem a REAL place! NOW who founded Jerusalem?? WOW Lets see GOD! Obviously if you went to Jerusalem history you will find God written all over it.
2.BIG BANG THEORY. We have all heard of the scientific way of believing how earth was created. But if you go deep into the topic it says of a COLLISION but this was all made in space. Who made Space? Now science cant prove a possible way for anybody but God to do such things with all of this power of all these unlimited unknown planets who we still cannot see.
3.RELIGION. Yes you may still not believe me that God is real. It is your decision. If you do I am very happy because if nobody has then you should try to be that one person who should and will. May GOD bless you or if not have a wonderful day!
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
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Topaet 1 month ago
Topaet
@Alphamus "your description of "valid" is incorrect" I've provided a source for the definition, it is correct.

"External links may not be used as arguments, only as sources."
I wrote this to prevent people from spamming videos and long articles instead of making their point quickly and providing evidence.

"REASONING CAN BE VALID/SOUND WITHOUT 100% CERTAINTY." No, a valid deductive argument proves its conclusion with 100% certainty if its premises are true.

"...to hide your deep-seated bias against theism. Call this an ad-hominem, if you will." Seriously?

"You oversimplified Anselm's position" I disagree. We could debate any version of the ontological argument you want, provided that you will be arguing that some form of the ontological argument is valid.
Posted by canis 1 month ago
canis
The problem with any god is that you have to create one before you can debate one..So you can only debate the gods that you or someone else created.
Posted by Alphamus 1 month ago
Alphamus
"Sound = A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all its premises are true."
""Valid = 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. [1]""

Unnecessary focus on semantics -> big red flag. Philosophy is simply providing stronger reasoning against someone else's. Your descriptions of "sound" and "valid" are neither necessary, nor conducive to debating. (And your description of "valid" is incorrect) Furthermore, theism by nature is a belief based fundamentally on probability: e.g, I'd say there is LIKELY a God, not try to "prove" belief by abiding to your illogically narrow definitions of "sound" and "valid". REASONING CAN BE VALID/SOUND WITHOUT 100% CERTAINTY. I surmise that you tried to narrowly restrict arguments against your position to create a series of strawman arguments for you to then "refute".

"External links may not be used as arguments, only as sources."

Unlikely, given that you will likely paraphrase Kant's counterargument, Hume's, Gasking's, etc.

"Please refrain from using ad hominem arguments and/or logical fallacies."

By nature, debating is about finding logical fallacies. If everyone's positions had no logical fallacies, then there would be no debating. I suspect your use of the word "fallacy" is to dazzle some of the simpler debaters on here into submission to hide your deep-seated bias against theism. Call this an ad-hominem, if you will.

"Anselm's Proslogion 2 ontological argument:
P1: God is that than which nothing greater can be thought of.
P2: It is greater to exist in the mind and reality than just in the mind.
C1: God must exist."

You oversimplified Anselm's position and neglected to mention three more points, and removed key words such as "conceptual truth", "probability", etc.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Your constructed bias and poor grasp of metaphysics is
Posted by Edril 1 month ago
Edril
I almost accepted this debate thinking the instigator was pro as well.
Posted by DrCereal 1 month ago
DrCereal
My*
-.-
Posted by DrCereal 1 month ago
DrCereal
I'm deep apologies; I just realized I've made a fool of myself.
I thought you were the Pro in this discussion. Disregard my other comments.
Posted by DrCereal 1 month ago
DrCereal
How much time is allowed for a response?
Posted by DrCereal 1 month ago
DrCereal
It's slightly ironic that you argue for God's existence yet have a profile picture of Bertrand Russell.
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.