The Instigator
Smithereens
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Magic8000
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

The ontological arguments justify a belief in God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 5 votes the winner is...
Smithereens
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,360 times Debate No: 31328
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (5)

 

Smithereens

Pro

Motion: The ontological arguments justify a belief in God.


Intro: I as the affirmative will be arguing that there is at least 1 valid ontological argument for the existence of God and Con will attempt to refute every argument I make. This debate is between myself and Magic8000 as a result of a previous debate for the existence of God, where the ontological argument I produced didn't get enough attention due to character space. Con in this debate is not allowed to argue that belief in God cannot be justified, rather he must directly attack my arguments. BoP is on me to provide at least 1 valid argument that succeeds in affirming the resolution.


Definitions:
Ontological arguments: Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

justify: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

God: The greatest possible being, tri-omni creator of the universe.


Rules:
1) No semantics, trolling, exessive amounts of foul language or insults.
2) Forfeiture in 1 round results in conduct point loss, forfeiture in 2 or more is 7 point penalty.
3) Case must be coherent and in English.
4) Material may not be posted in comments, material from comments may not be used in the debate.
5) If 10 or more sources are used, they may be posted in comments section.
6) No redefining the defintions set, any clarifications must be sent in pm to me before the debate, clarifications may be made during the debate with consent if absolutely necessary.
7) Use of unsourced, copywrited material is not permitted.
8) Round 1 is for acceptaince only
9) No new arguments after round 3

Breaking a rule will result in conduct point penalty


Structure:

My opponent will be debating as Con.
4 Rounds
2 week voting period
72 hours to respond
8000 characters

Magic8000

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Smithereens

Pro

This round I will be introducing the model ontological argument, a modified version of it, formal mathematical proof, and answers to two common objections.


Modal Ontological argument [1]

    1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
    2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
    3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
    4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
    5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
    6. Therefore, God exists.


At this point of time, I will offer no further elaboration on this argument, what I want to focus on is more complex ontological arguments, the next being a formal mathematical proof of God's existence using formal logic.


Godels Ontological proof:
Godel's ontological argument is a valid formal proof that concludes with God's existence. This ontological argument is quite different to most in the sense that it only uses mathematic functions to create the next premise. The principles that many of the Axioms pre-suppose to be true don't need to be debated, I assume that both parties agree on things like positiveness is relative to our moral asthetic sense. Other logical laws will also be supposed to be true throughout this debate to allow smooth arguments and rebuttal, like simple logical functions (negation as failure, bivalence etc)
[2]

A worded version of this argument is shown here as well:
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 2: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
Conclusion: Infering x as God is justified as God-like properties are exhibited.

This formal proof is also a justification for premise 3 in the model ontological argument and a rebuttal to Kant's objection in his critique of pure reason, which I will attempt to investigate in more detail further on.


Modified modal ontological argument: [3]
1)
God is that which nothing greater is possible, i.e. the greatest possible being.

2) It is at least possible for God to exist in reality. That is, whether or not God actually exists in the real world, He at least exists in some possible set of circumstances. So, God might have existed in the real world.

3) If something exists only in the mind but is possible, then that something might have been greater than it is. For example, a majestic mountain that exists only in the mind might have been greater: the mountain existing in reality.

4) Suppose God exists only in the mind and not in reality.

5) Then there is a possible being that is greater, namely God existing in reality.

6) So it is possible for something to have been greater than God.

7) Since God is that which nothing greater is possible, then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible.

C: Premise 7 is not possible and therefore its negation is true, God exists.

This argument in logical symbolism: based on the model of Anselm's ontological argument to prove God.[4]


And now, I have a rough idea of what my opponent is going to say in rebuttal, so lets dismantle it before hand all in the name of premptive headaches:

Gaunillo's island
A monk called Gaunillo made a disagreement with Anselm's modal ontological argument not long after its formulation, he created the famous Gaunilo's island as a response to the argument. He claimed that the term God was interchangeable with any 'greatest possible thing,' and thus the argument couldn't possibly work. There are a few things wrong with his objection, the biggest being that it is wrong, but also that it doesn't actually invalidate the argument. Technically, the modal ontological argument is still sound, and thus the conclusion necessarily follows. So what is wrong with Gaunilo's island?

It is Demonstratebly false and employs faulty logic
Gaunilo's island doesn't actually work, in fact, the modal ontological argument doesn't work on anything other than the greatest possible being. To refute the argument:

P1) There exists an island greater than the perfect island.
P2) Such an island has no physical boundaries or forms
P3) Such an island is capable of thought and being
P4) Such a being is tri-omni
P5) This tri-omni being is God.

The island parody simple proves God. The reason why Gaunilo didn't see this is because he never imagined these premises could be added to his argument. In short, there is no such thing as the greatest possible island, there will always be something greater until the 'island' exhibits God-like qualities. It is similar to claiming there exists the greatest possible integer, no such thing.

One popular objection:
"A perfect island, presumably, is one with an abundance of lush palm trees and pristine beaches. The more of these an island has, the better it is. There is, however, no intrinsic maximum number of trees or beaches that an island could have; for any island that can be imagined, there is another, greater island, with one more palm tree and one more beach. There is, then, no island than which no greater island can be conceived. The concept of the perfect island is incoherent; there can be no such thing." [5]

Kant's Objection:
Immanuel Kant, in his book, Critique of pure reason, claims that existence is not a predicate, and thus the modal ontological argument fails. This objection is undermined by Godel's formal proof, however we will look a little further regardless.

The first problem with Kant's objection is that it is self-defeating. In essence, it states that there exists a God which does not exist. This self-defeating claim is akin to saying that 'I know what God is like, and I know that he doesn't exist.'

The second problem is that it is like gaunilo's criticism, false. A God that exists in every possible world has nessecary existence, one that doesn't merely has contingent or possible existence. We define the greatest possible being as having nessecary existence as opposed to contingent/possible existence and so a being with nessecary existence is greater than a being with possible existence.

Kant's objection is demonstrably wrong since it can be shown that a being that exists in reality is greater than one that doesn't.


Concluding, all the arguments I have presented are logically valid. Good luck to Con in his responding address.



Sources:
[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
[3] http://www.angelfire.com...
[4] http://www.debate.org...
[5] http://www.existence-of-god.com...

Magic8000

Con

I would like to thank Pro for challenging me to this debate. My response fits for all ontological arguments, so it will be pretty short. It may seem like the response doesn't fit with Godel's, but since God is defined as the greatest possible being, it does.

All of these ontological arguments assume an objective standard of what is great. Great seems to be the working link in the chain. If we took “great” and added “weak” the arguments would fail. If the standard of great is subjective, then the argument can't objectively prove God exists, since subjectivity is only in the mind.

So, where does the standard of great comes from to say that God is the greatest possible being?

I can think of 2 ways

  1. The standard is above God

  2. The standard comes from God/God's nature/created by God.

Both ways can't fit with the ontological arguments presented.

1. The standard is above God

This can't be true under a theistic world view, because it would undermine a God, by saying there's something above him that he's subject to. It also means the source of such a standard must be the ultimate of great thing, which God is suppose to be. I'm sure 1 will be regarded as false by both parties.

So the only one left is

2. The standard comes from God/God's nature/created by God.

This however would mean the arguments are committing the fallacy of begging the question. Since God, being the greatest must necessarily exist, but “great” is set by God. It's like trying to prove a maximally fast car exists, but you say “fast” is set by how fast the car your trying to prove is going.

If “great” is set by the being, then saying God necessarily exists because it is the greatest, is saying God mus necessarily exist, because God is most like himself.

My argument simplified is,

1. The standard of what is great is either internal or external from God.

2. Neither work with the ontological arguments.

C. Therefore the ontological arguments are invalid.

Back to Pro.

Debate Round No. 2
Smithereens

Pro

Thank you to Con for making an effort to participate in this debate.

Going straight to defending the argumetns, I would first like to note that Con gave 1 argument against ontological arguments and it didn't refute Godels proof.

Before I address that, we must first see why Con's argument is wrong.

Deconstructing Con's argument from subjective standard:
The fallacy of Con's case becomes evident when one considers what the word 'great' actually means. There is actually no such thing as a universal objective definition for an adjective. Does greatness exist? can one hold it? At this point, it seems like I am arguing against my own case, however, my point will become clear in a moment.

A big problem facing us here in this debate is the problem of words, the english language is quite frankly, horrible for most sorts of logical and philosophical arguments. So instead of saying that there is such thing as 'greatness,' we must instead conceptualise it. A good definition for great is 'markedly superior in character or quality'[1]. This is where our first problem arises, we use words to define words. To find out what the greatest possible being is, we simply compare it with other things. It has no standard on its own whatsoever. Notice in the definition I just gave, the word 'superior,' but for something to be superior, it must be compared to something. This is where we make our standard. The standard is the comparison between two things. So to find out if God is superior to a mountain, we simply draw conclusions as to which of the two has:
a) more qualitative traits
b) more quantitative traits
God has more of both, this is how we know He is greater than a mountain. Con's argument seeks to use semantics with words to form a contradiction, however, when one starts to define the word 'greatest' it becomes evident that it has no standard individually.

In summary of this point, we can ignore the word 'greatest' all we have to do is compare God with everything, thats how we know He is the greatest possible being. There exists nothing with more positive qualitative traits, and quantitative traits.

Moving on, Godels formal proof does not define God as the greatest possible being, it simply concludes with x as exhibiting God-like qualities, and is therefore God.

Since I have plenty of characters to spare, I will now employ another ontological argument that is likewise not affected by Con's current address, a temporal modal logical proof also authored by Godel.

Godel's Temporal modal logical proof:

(H ψ → (ψ • G ψ))

(T1) ~ (H ψ → (ψ • G ψ)) (n) NTF

(T2) H ψ (n) 1, PC

(T3) ~ (ψ • G ψ) (n) 1, PC

(T4) ~ψ (n) 3, PC

(T4)' ~G ψ (n) 3, PC

(T5) F~ ψ (n) 3, MN

(T6) nBk 5, FR

(T7) ~ψ (k) 5,6, FR

(T8) kBn 2, HR

(T9) ψ (k) 2,7, HR

MN = Modal Negation

FR = ◊R

HR = □R

(T1) = It is not true that if it always has been the case that a God-like being exists then a God-like being exists and it is always going to be the case that a God-like being exists in (n).

(T2) = It always has been the case that a God-like being existed in (n).

(T3) = It is not true that a God-like being exists and it is always going to exist in (n).

(T4) = A God-like being does not exist in (n)

(T4)' = It is not the case that a God-like being will always exist in (n).

(T5) = In sometime in the future it will be the case that a God-like being will not exist in (n).

(T6) = (n) occurred before (k).

(T7) = A God-like being does not exist in (k).

(T8) = (k) occurred before (n). (Reflexive Rule)

(T9) = A God-like being exists in (k).

The negation of the formula creates a contradiction. [2]

I would like to see what Con has to say for his own argument and the 2 argumetns currently unaddressed.



[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
[2] http://www.ifzg.hr...;
Magic8000

Con

Pro gives a definition of great which is 'markedly superior in character or quality'. Pro doesn't answer my argument, but only pushes the question up. I understand we must compare something with other things to be considered great. I'm asking, whose comparison are we going by? Subjective, objective internal of God, or objective external from God comparison?

Pro says God is great because he has the most qualitative traits and quantitative traits. I don't see how more of something is better, I can have huge glass of water, which can be said to be great, but the most quantity of water in my room wouldn't be good at all. Saying God has the most qualitative traits is simply moving the question. Quality is simply a degree of excellence (as it's mainly used) [1]. I'm assuming Pro means the most quality, but we see how this just pushes it up a level. Something with the maximal amount of quality is basically synonymous with greatest. Saying God has the most quality or is the most superior is only pushing the argument up, it suffers the same problem.

Pro says God must be compared to other things, but what about before these things? Was God just not great yet?

On Godel

Pro Godel's argument isn't defining God as the greatest possible being. We agreed the definition of God in this debate was “The greatest possible being, tri-omni creator of the universe.” When the words “God-like” come into play, we would be going by the agreed definition and not redefining as per rule 6. What does “God-like” mean if it's not the one set in R1?

I'm sorry for such short responses, I wish I could make this longer, but my response to the OA is short, simple, and to the point.


Back to Pro.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Smithereens

Pro

I don't particularily mind Con's extremely short responses, however, the effort each side puts into their posts will have a say when it comes down to it.

To start, I will continue my deconstruction of the Negative case by further addressing Con's one and only argument. I might add that it would have been wise for Con to have played more than what he did with all his character space just to be safe, as at this current moment, his position is far from safe.

Argument from subjective standard:
To demonstrate why Con's argument is completely ludicrious, it is equal to asking: 'Are flowers flowers because they are flowers? Or are they flowers because God said they were fowers?' In this case, Con has produced an either/or fallacy by stating that one is true, or the other is true. But when one has a good think about this situation, it becomes evident that there are more than 2 options. Is something great because God said it was great? Or because it is great on its own? Both can be true, and both can be false at the same time.

In response to what I just said, I am pretty certain that Con is going to jump up and say, 'No! thats not possible! you cannot have a subjective scale of greatness and an objective scale at the same time!' Which is where my previous rounds rebuttal kicks in. There is no such thing as scales of greatness. To recall my argument, what exactly is greatness? Its simply a comparison between the traits of two or more beings to determine which has more qualitative and quantitative desirable traits. When you put qualitative and quantitative together, you get magnitude, God's traits are infinite in magnitude and thus since nothing surpasses infinity, there is nothing greater than God. I will restate my argument with this refined definition of greatest:
      1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no being with more qualitative and quantitative traits can be conceived.
      2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
      3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality has more qualitative/quantitative traits than a being that exists only in the mind.
      4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a being with more qualitative/quantitative traits —that which exists in reality.
      5. We cannot be imagining something that more Q/Q traits than a being with Infinite Q/Q traits.
      6. Therefore, a being with infinite Q/Q traits exists. (God)
Note a single sentence that underpins most of Con's Round 3 address: "Pro says God is great because he has the most qualitative traits and quantitative traits. I don't see how more of something is better." So whose being subjective now? The fallcy in this sentence is where Pro equivilates the word 'better' with 'greatest.' They are not nessecarily more desirable, they simply have more of the traits the we associate with the definition of God. An example of a qualitative trait is omnipotence, of this, the magnitude that this represents is infinity, regardless of scale. Of numerical qualities, omnipresence would fit this category, how many possible worlds does God exist in? If He has nessecary existence ie. Omnipresence, then he exists in every possible world. The magnitude of this is also infinity regardless of scale.
So this is what the greatest possible being is.
I also thought up another way of refuting this argument. Lets pretend that Con is correct in thinking that there are standards of greatness. Now lest assume they are subjective. Try and visulise such a scale as a scale of greatness from 1-10. God is infinite, 10 so nothing can be greater than him. While the size of everyonese scales may differ, some people may have scales that go from 1-5 instead, but all are similar in that all scales recognise that nothing is bigger than the biggest number of that scale. And since the ontological argument states in premise 1: 'God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.' Such a scale if it exists, would work to prove God and to prove the ontological argument, not support Con's case.


Godel's formal proof:
Con rejects the argument from Godel based on his assumptions that:
a) Anything God-like is God, and God is only allowed to be defined as the greatest possible being, tri-omni creator of the universe.
b) Rule 6 says what he thinks it says.

To clarify: 6) No redefining the defintions set, any clarifications must be sent in pm to me before the debate, clarifications may be made during the debate with consent if absolutely necessary.

This rule is purely for pre-debate organisation, I do not believe it is possible for me to consent with myself as to whether I can clarify or add more definitions for God. What it means is that if Con sees the debate while in challenge period, and would like to clarify definitions during the debate, he can get permission from me to clarify to his heart's content.

This rule is binding to me as well. I am not allowed to redefine definitions set in round 1, I am only allowed to clarify, and since I don't need to ask myself for permission, I can clarify the definitions I set wherever I see nessecary. By adding more definitions to God, i am further refining and clarifying the definition of God that I am attempting to prove, there is nothing at all wrong with me making extra definitions.

However, please note that I have not made extra definitions, it's all in Con's head.

What Godel's argument attempts to prove is that there is an entity x that exist, and x has God-like properties. Con's argument does not disprove this argument, if we were to assume his debunked argument was correct, then x is still tri-omni, and that is enough to affirm the resolution once and for all. This is round 4, no new material and thus this argument likewise succeeds.

But it gets even better, the temporal modal logic ontological argument for God (TMLOAG) doesn't use the defintiion of God being the greatest being either. It simply states that there exists something which exhibits the qualities of the God that we are debating. Tri-omni, and all the other qualities associated with our concept of the greatest possible being, including transcendence, and other Jeudo-christian concepts which are allowed by the current definition of greatest.

Conclusion:

I would have liked to see more material by Con, more arguments, more counter-argumetns, better defense etc. But what I saw here was at least satisfactory. In light of 2 of my arguments standing untouched, 2 of my arguments unrefuted and Cons single argument case completely dismantled, I would consider this a Pro win.

Thank you for the debate Con.
Magic8000

Con

I see here that Pro ignored my main argument, that quality and quantity suffer the same problem. Pro states I committed the either/or fallacy. However you can see I didn't offer 2 solutions, but 3. I said the standard of great can be subjective. This is pretty much what Pro went with. That there's no standard of greatness, but then he says God is great because he has a quality and quantity of properties. Then how do you objectivity conclude those are great making properties. This all is just subjective opinion. I think God's properties are great, therefore God exists.

'No! thats not possible! you cannot have a subjective scale of greatness and an objective scale at the same time!' Which is where my previous rounds rebuttal kicks in. There is no such thing as scales of greatness

This would be subjective, not subjective and objective at the same time.

Pro then repeats himself like my R3 response doesn't exist.

Pro quotes me in saying I don't see how quantity is better. He falsely claims this underpins my R3 response. This is self-evidently false, it was a part of a response to the statement that something is great because of quantity. Pro then says I'm being subjective. If I'm being subjective isn't Pro equally being subjective? I gave justification for this too "I can have huge glass of water, which can be said to be great, but the most quantity of water in my room wouldn't be good at all." The only way for quantity to be great, it must already hold quality. Which as I said, suffers from the same problem as "great" and Pro never responded to this.

Pro then commits a straw man fallacy in claiming if such a scale exists, it would prove God. This is what I've been saying the ontological argument assumes all along! I'm not saying an objective scale exists, therefore the ontological argument fails. I'm saying the ontological argument assumes a scale, yet it can't reconcile the source of it without becoming fallacious! This was a complete straw man of my argument from Pro.

Godel

Pro is splitting his definition into two. The definition was "the greatest possible being, tri-omni creator of the universe." not "the greatest possible being/Tri-omni creator of the universe." It was together. Pro also never clarified any definition, he just dropped the definition without specifying what it meant. Pro claims my argument doesn't defeat the other two because they define God as the tri omni creator. As I said in R2 "All of these ontological arguments assume an objective standard of what is great. Great seems to be the working link in the chain. If we took "great" and added "weak" the arguments would fail" If God's properties weren't great, then the argument can't prove God necessarily exists.

Conclusion

Pro never responded to my rebuttal in R3. He completely ignored it and repeated what he said in R3. He straw mans my argument, ignores it, and erroneously claims it doesn't do anything to the other two forms.

I thank Pro for this debate, now my children, go forth and vote!
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Harper 2 years ago
Harper
The ontological argument is flawed because it only proves that the greatest being in existence exists. Not very profound if you ask me.

But then, it also does not take into account whether or not being "tri-omni" is even within the realm of possibility, especially since there are some unresolved logical paradoxes that arise from a being possessing the tri-omni traits.

And plus, just because we can conceive of a greater being existing, doesn't mean it necessarily exists. For example, the fastest land animal is the cheetah at a maximum of 120 km/h, but we can certainly conceive of something greater. We can certainly conceive of a being going 129 km/h, that's completely within the realm of possibility. But alas, such a creature does not exist. However, if you were just going on this logical formulation, you would be mislead to believe that it does.

The point is that just because you determine that something is within the realm of possibility (and that is even *if* a tri-omni being is possible, which was never demonstrated in the debate), does nothing to tell whether or not it actually exists. All you can say is that there is a possibility, whose probability is unknown or unknowable, that a tri-omni god for whom there exists no superior exists.
Posted by enaidealukal 4 years ago
enaidealukal
Good idea- done.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Enaid

Challenge Pro to a debate.
Posted by enaidealukal 4 years ago
enaidealukal
Dear lord, I wish I could've accepted this debate... Pro has grossly misrepresented the traditional objections to the OA he considers (Gaunilo and Kant), completely ignores others (Hume, not to mention the entirety of the modern literature on the subject) and fails to present a convincing case that any version of the OA is sound... Given that, how is it that Con is losing; all he should have to do to win is simply show up!?
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Did Nazi Jesus tell you that anti?
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
Con fails due to stupidness. His argument suck. God is great because the greatness of objectivity is equalized by the nature of the great itself!! God must exist because of the quantitative nature of that what is axiomatically great which equates into God. Win for pro
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
A striking proposal, and now I am thinking 'why didn't I think of that?' And the answer is because its a good idea. I severely lack in that department...
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
@Smithis,

You have to add him as a friend. Then you can message him.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
I tried to message Massivedumps on his RDF, but he doesn't accept messages, so atm I am at a loss on what to do except hope that he comes and reads the comments, but I guess it doesn't matter so much now that we have a counter, thanks jh1234.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
As do I =)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
SmithereensMagic8000Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's entire case seems to have revolved around the lack of an objective standard of goodness. Because his case attacked all ontological arguments simultaneously, Con believed his rather short case to adequately refute all of the different ontological arguments Pro presented. Pro showed how the ontological argument does not rely on subjective preference, but rather an objective superiority based in quantity or quality, and Con's case was consequently defeated. However, Pro also presented an ontological argument not based in objective greatness (this doesn't matter, but I just wanted to say that there are tons of OAs that don't use greatness; such as a modal OA from an omniscient being: it's impossible for a being to know he doesn't exist, and an omniscient being possibly exists) which still supported Pro even given the adequacy of Con's critique. Since Con pretty much reiterated this to the end of the debate, there's really not much more to say. Arguments to Pro, but good job both.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
SmithereensMagic8000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: comments + countering jh1234l as requested
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
SmithereensMagic8000Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Taking my vote back.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
SmithereensMagic8000Tied
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: Counter massive dump, please give a better RFD. When he does give one, please counter this vote.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
SmithereensMagic8000Tied
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: Pro insists repeatedly that his god is maximally great but never once provides a no circular or nonsubjective definition of greatness. Plainly, what makes god great? He exists! What makes him exist? He is great!