The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

i dont know god, and only know is true

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 3 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 554 times Debate No: 81243
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

vi_spex

Pro

i know that i dont know unknown
lannan13

Con

The Modal Ontological Argument

Dating as far back as the Saint Anslem, as this argument has been honnored by philosphers on every side of the spectrum. I shall be definding the version of this argument that was made popular by Alvin Plantinga. His model uses the S5 model and thus is immune to the popular arguments against that philospher Kant has made and hence making Kant's argument void. I shall also argue another point made famous by William Criag: The Argument is bellow.

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. [1]

Here we can see that we can already see that on face value that it is possible that God exists. Due to this small plausability we can see that at any slight chance proves that there is a God in some reality and hence this reality. In order for Con to disprove God he must show that it is impossible in every possible circumstance. Now as we look at the premise 1 and 2 we can see that God can exist which leads me into my S5 argument.
S5: If possibly necessarily P, then necessarily P [2]

This would mean if a MGB is possible then it exists in at least one possible world. Under this model it would have to exist in all possible worlds qua maximally great especially since MG entails absolute exsistance. Since this world is part of a string of possible worlds then God has no choice, but to exist in this world.

Anslem's OA

A statement is a priori = one can see that it is true using pure reason and given an understanding of the meanings of the words in it. We don’t need empirical evidence to know that it’s true. A priori statements seem to be true necessarily.

A statement is a posteriori = our evidence for its truth is empirical, or based on data that we receive via sense experience.

1. God, by definition, is the greatest possible being.
2. A being that does not exist in the real world is less great than a being that exists necessarily, or in all possible worlds.
3. Suppose that God (the greatest possible being) does not exist in the real world.
4. If the greatest possible being does not exist in the real world, then He is not as great as the possible being who is just like him but who does exist in the real world.
5. But the greatest possible being can’t be less great than some other possible being. To say that “the being than which none greater is possible is a being than which a greater is possible” is to say something that’s necessarily false, because self-contradictory.
6. The supposition in 3 is false. God does exist in the real world. And he exists not contingently, but necessarily, or in all possible worlds. It is impossible for God not to exist. [3]

Here we can see that Point 6 is completely true. If we had this maximumly great being of some sort we could see that even if we took him out of our universe that there would still be a Maximumly Great Being. Thus we can simplify to see that when combined with the S5 argument of the Ontoligcal argument that God is Possible in All worlds and because of this we can see that it's a posteriori for God to Exist and arguing otherwise is futile.

Since God is actually A priori meaning that he is prior knowledge we can see that my opponent does know God on that ground alone. Not to mention since the greatest thing in the universe is God we can see that he would know God as it is the Greatest Possible thing that he could imagine.

Sources
1. Oppy, Graham (8 February 1996; substantive revision 15 July 2011). "Ontological Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2. Marenbon, M., Medieval Philosophy: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, 2006, p. 128.
3. Anselm, St., Anselm's Basic Writings, translated by S.W. Deane, 2nd Ed. (La Salle, IL: Open Court Publishing Co., 1962
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

know is absolute, no belief involved, not about possibilities

lies exist

possibilities are not real, to you, god is as possible as not god.. belief is doubt, as the opposite is possible

reality is happening not can happen

do you know the unknown?
lannan13

Con

Well that's fallacy as we can see if it's Neccesarially Possible then is Neccessarially. Meaning that if it's possible it can happen in this case meaning that by this logic God has no choice, but to exist.

Lies do exist, but this is irrelevant to the topic.

Reality is happening and as reality is happening so is God.

Only wise men know what they do not know.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

can happen is not happening.. reality is happening not can happen

right, a wise man chooses to believe in talking snakes without evidence any day of the week
lannan13

Con

You do not know that. We have the Possible Worlds. How do we not know that you are just in a Possible World and not the real world? If it's possible in all Possible Worlds than it can and most likely will happen.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

because i am, not can be, if i could be i wouldnt be

we have possible red elephants from lost and never to be seen again pages from the bible that states the god is really the red king elephant
lannan13

Con

What if God really is? We wouldn't know what red is, because this may not be the real world, but a possible world where red is really gray and we can see that our line of thinking is false by this means. God has no choice, but to exist.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

if=false

what if a tiny stone drops on your head as you read this last word?

life is.. not can be

lies exist
lannan13

Con

I can read it, because after it did I would finish it.

Well if Life is, then since God created Life, then by your logic God exists.

Extend all points across the board.

Thank you and please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
something like that
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
watching a movie is like seeing stories inside the head of another person, with me inside watching stories, so my wall can represent the back of the inside of some ones head when i plug the tv kabel in
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
knowledge is seen
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
What if you remember a hallucination? Memory does not equal seen.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i must see it to have seen it
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
memory=seen
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
I can't recall that memory yet. You eventually will or perhaps will not tell me, but at this point of time it is extremely hard to recall leading me to the point to where I can only guess if you are wearing a hat, but a possiblity is perhaps you do not own a hat and this is a trick question to start.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
so tell me if i am wearing a hat or not right now
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
It is know. It's in the deep creavas of your mind. You know, but you might not be able to recall it.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
know is

knowledge is known
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Matt532 1 year ago
Matt532
vi_spexlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Grammar to Con, though Con makes quite a few mistakes, and Pro wins on spelling without the caps. Pro failed to argue against Con's argument, so 3 points to con. I do this b/c Pro seems to not try with caps. Con gives sources, so +2 for con. My own opinions: (1) I say that JTB is true: Knowledge = justified true belief. (2) Reality couldn't happen if it isn't possible to happen. (3) I am against Anselm's Ontological argument, as I see a problem with it, unfortunately. The reason is that there is a jump from the mental to the real world that must be explained, that pro was trying to get at, but couldn't distinguish clearly enough. Possibilities are real in and of themselves, as possibilities. The way William Craig's Argument is given makes it harder to refute, which is legitimate, but I have a beef with #3, as this is a jump from the mental world to the real world. Also, one can replace "maximally great being" with some other imaginary thing, and the same results would occur.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
vi_spexlannan13Tied
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: This is an easy decision for me. Con provides arguments. One of these including an ontological argument. Neither this argument or any arguments provided by Con were refuted by Pro. They made assertions that were easily refuted by Con. Since Pro failed to directly respond to any odf Con's arguments, I have been given no other choice other than to award Con the win.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
vi_spexlannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better grammar.