The Instigator
Jake2daBone
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Double_R
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

The ontological argument

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 6 votes the winner is...
Double_R
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,432 times Debate No: 24032
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

Jake2daBone

Pro

This is Christopher McHugh's version of the Ontological arugment, and it goes like this:

1) God's existence is either logically impossible or logically necessary.
2) God's existence is not logically impossible.
3) Therefore, God necessarily exists.

Premise 1 is true because the definition of God does not allow for contingency; it either necessarily exists or it necessarily doesn't exist.

Premise 2 is true because it is possible to define God using only negative properties; such properties are necessarily logically compatible. For example:

1) God is not contingent.

2) God is not reliant on anything else.

3) God is not subject to contingent law, such as laws of physics that don't apply in every possible world.

4) God is not natural.

5) God is not any sort of abstract entity.

6) God is not spatiotemporal.

7) God is not finite.

8) God is not deficient in any sense.

These characteristics not only show that God's existence is logically possible, but also that this argument cannot be parodied, which is how atheists usually deal with ontological arguments. This logic can be used to show that an evil godlike being exists, and so we would need additional arguments, such as the argument from the Resurrection, to show that God is the Christian God. But this argument cannot show that something that isn't godlike exists. It is foolproof, and it proves the existence of God.

Source: http://www.infidels.org...
Double_R

Con

Someone had to take this. I make the following argument with the utmost respect for Pro and his beliefs:

1) Santa Clause’s existence is either logically impossible or logically necessary.
2) Santa Clause’s existence is not logically impossible.
3) Therefore, Santa Clause necessarily exists.

Premise 1 is true because I will define Santa Clause in a way that does not allow for any contingencies.

Premise 2 is true because it is possible to define Santa Clause using only negative properties; such properties that I will simply make up are necessarily logically compatible.

Conclusion

Pro claims that this argument can not be used to show that something which isn't godlike exists. Pro is confusing his argument with his definition. His definition is of a godlike being, so of course it would not fit anything other then a godlike being. However the logic of the argument is not dependant on the definition he chose.

There is no dispute over premise 2 that God is logically possible. However Premise 1 basically states that because he is possible he is necessary. Such an argument can be used to assume the existence of anything, that does not prove that that which is being argued for does in fact exist. One can easily say that God is logically possible but may not exist. Pro offered nothing to dispute this obvious truth. Therefore the argument laid out above does not in fact prove the existence of God as Pro claims, it simply assumes it.

The resolution is negated.

Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
Stubs, the Santa Clause example was perfectly valid. If Premise 1 is to be accepted as a necessary truth then it does not matter what the subject of the Premise is. Pro simply chose to define God as non contingent. So what? That does not mean that God must exist simply because he is logically possible. You would need an argument to prove that. All Pro did was state it.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
I'd like to see what Pro said in further rounds.

It's not the regular contingent Santa who must exist according to Pro's logic. It is the necessary variant of Santa. And the necessary Loki. And the necessary Isis. And the necessary everytime-someone-rolls-a-pair-of-dice-they-roll-snake-eyes. By Pro's logic, anything can be defined into existence by calling it necessary.

Maybe Pro has a way of dealing with that, but he didn't give himself a chance to do so in this one-round debate.
Posted by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
Pro should have gone more rounds. Cons argument was not very good. The argument is things that are non-contingent. So the santa clause argument fails.
Posted by dirkson 4 years ago
dirkson
A single round does seem a bit short.

-Dirk
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
4 rounds and I'll accept.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Jake2daBoneDouble_RTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Total lack of backing for Premise 1 by Pro. Con effectively showed that simply defining the subject in a way that makes it necessarily existent does not suffice to prove it's existence. Pro would have done better to attempt to substantiate the position that IF God is possible THEN God is necessary. However, since he failed to do this, Con's reductio negates the resolution.
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
Jake2daBoneDouble_RTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: impossible or nessesary?.....wow interesting logic pro....con wins
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Jake2daBoneDouble_RTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The con succeeded in proving Premise 1 of the argument fallacious, and so won the argument. If there were more rounds Pro might have been able to bounce back, but who knows.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Jake2daBoneDouble_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden of proof, but he did not effectively support premise one. P1 seems outrageous. If P1 is true, one can define anything into existence, including, as Con points out, a necessary version of Santa Clause.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
Jake2daBoneDouble_RTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 4 years ago
Mrparkers
Jake2daBoneDouble_RTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I never understood the premise behind an argument which attempts to define God into existence. Con addressed this and then did the same thing with Santa Claus, and that was enough to demonstrate the argument's absurdity.