The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

DDO Tier Tournament 2 (Round 2): On Balance Ontology Makes God A Necessary Phenomenon!

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,194 times Debate No: 58862
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)




Greetings and Salutations!
This debate is part of Mikal's DDO Tier Tournament:
It is the second round (semi-finals):

The debate is to take place between Fanath,
and Ajab.

Both contestants won their previous debates, with Fanath beating lannan13,
and Ajab beating Crescendo.

The Spirit of this debate is to consider an original Ontological Proof which I have come up with. This Proof will seek to make God a necessary phenomenon.
Rules for Contestants:

1. There is a shared Burden of Proof, but I have the higher mountain to climb. I must lay out the proof and my opponent must find flaws in my logic. The voters must vote for whichever side has the higher probability of being right. Voters must judge the content within the debate only.

2. The first round is for acceptance, with acceptance Fanath binds himself to the definitions, and the rules set herein.

3. No semantics will be allowed this includes Kripkean semantics.

4. There is a 10,000 character limit, 72 hours to post one's arguments/rebuttals, and a Select Winner voting system. There is an Elo Restriction of 2500 on who is allowed to vote here.

5. I request that youtube not be used, as it is banned in my country.

6. Links must be provided to any sources cited, as must the page number.

7. All definitions will be taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.


1. God: is then an omnipotent, and omniscient being who is maximally great, and is transcendent of Time, Space and Number.

The rest of terms will then be defined where necessary. I wish my opponent the best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to Ajab for posting his arguments. I’ll post his argument to refresh our memories then move onto the rebuttals.

"1. The Idea of God exists in human cognition.

2. The Idea of God could not have been made up by any faculty of the mind.

3. Any Idea which is not made up by the mind, and is not garnered from experience, must exist as an innate idea.

4. Ergo the Idea of God exists as an innate idea."


Premise 1: The Idea of God exists in human cognition.

This premise is accepted by both me and my opponent, so no contentions need to be made on this point.

Premise 2: The Idea of God could not have been made up by any faculty of the mind.

Like my opponent stated earlier, this is the premise we disagree on. He shows two arguments proving this:

"whatever Idea the imagination comes up with is a complex idea"

Pro makes the argument here that no idea of the mind is a simple idea, and that God is a simple idea, so the idea of God could not have originated from the human mind. He shows a couple examples of complex idea’s, stating that an idea such as Pokemon might seem simple at first but are in fact complex. He doesn’t have any evidence of this, rather he assumes that we agree with him on them being complex.

To start, let’s define complex. Oxford Dictionary defines complex as: “Consisting of many different and connected parts, Not easy to analyze or understand; complicated or intricate” [1]

When we look at a Pokemon like Ditto, can we really say he’s complex? Note at that the first point in his creation, he was just a purple blob. [2] When first made he didn’t have any moves at all. So for the idea of a purple blob to be complex, Ditto needs to be consisting of many different parts, and/or not easy to understand. Is it really hard to understand the concept of a purple blob? I would say no, it is not hard to understand that this is a purple blob. So does it have many parts to it? When we look at the picture of Ditto above, it’s a blob with a smiley face. This hardly counts for something “Consisting of many different and connected parts”. We don’t need to look at just Ditto and Pokemon to. We could look at other idea’s (But not all) as well and get the same result. We don’t necessarily need to look at developed idea’s, rather we can look at idea’s when they’re in the first stage of creation in order to determine whether human minds are only able to think of complex idea’s. Like with Ditto for example, we looked at him when a purple blob was first thought of rather than looking at him present day.

My opponents first support to his second and third premise fails because it asserts that the human mind cannot come up with concepts that are not complex, which is clearly false.

“can we make up a purely original concept?”

I would say that we don’t need to in order to come up with God. A human would have plenty of things to inspire him//her because they can use their eyes and look at the world around them, hence getting idea’s. From those idea’s they can get other idea’s, until they land on God. Note that, the first person who thought of a God didn’t need to think he exists. He could have been lying to people knowing full well he made it up. My opponent needs to argue that idea’s can’t lead to other idea’s and that the environment around us cannot lead to new idea’s to prove this point.

“The mind can only come up with those phenomena which are a posteriori”

Like I had said earlier, humans have plenty of inspirations to observe. My opponent hasn’t proven that the mind could not have thought of God at all.

In conclusion:

My opponents first argument supporting his second premise claiming that it is not possible for a human to make a complex idea is clearly false, as it contradicts with our observation of simple ideas humans originating from humans minds. His second argument claiming that humans are not able to think of a purely original idea also fails, as like I had described earlier, any humans who thought up of a God would have had plenty of inspiration for the idea to be based upon. We can therefore conclude that my opponent's second premise has been negated, and the rest of the argument falls along with it. My BOP for this round has been fulfilled, thank you.



Debate Round No. 2


I once more remind the most honest Mikal that he needs to pass judgement here. I wish he was not so lazy. More importantly until then we can continue, however I have asked Mikal for a second time, it would do well if Fanath did so as well. I am writing this as 1 am because I promised Fanath I would write my arguments with haste. I propose a solution, I will leave out Round 5, which will give Fanath an extra round, and 10,000 extra characters; he will also then have the last word, I think this is an honest enough penalty.

I must say I am partly saddened by this rebuttal. Oh well, I shall answer it none the less. The first thing however I want to note is that philosophers are allowed to define terms according to themselves. I could have made up a word, but I used the meaning of complex as Hume uses it, and I referenced the Treatise of Human Nature. In philosophy a complex idea is any idea that can be distinguished into parts. Is it then clear?

My opponent seems to accept Premise 1, 3 and the conclusion. As for if the voters asked: 'he just proved God is innate?' then I ask them to consider first of all Fanath never engaged me in this, and secondly philosophers unanimously accept innate as true. To give my argument a better look however consider it then from this point of view:

1. The idea of God exists in cognition independent of experience.
2. If an idea of cognition which exists independent of experience exists it is either false or necessarily true.
3. If an idea of cognition which exists independent of experience is false then it is imaginative.
4, The idea of God cannot be imagined.
5. Ergo the idea of God is necessarily true.

In all of this Fanath agrees that we only need to debate that the idea of God could not have been imagined up. Onto the counter refutations then.

Now let us take the complex idea concept. I argued ab absurdo that all the constructs of the imagination are complex ideas. You see I analysed what the imagination does, it takes certain ideas one already has and twists and turns it around. Since a simple idea cannot be broken down to distinguishable parts twisting and turning it will result in the same conclusion. Only when one either combines two simple ideas can one make a complex idea. That is what imagination does. In any case can you distinguish God into a smell, shape, color, feeling? The idea of the Being of God one does not understand, and one cannot distinguish into parts, therefore the idea of God could not have been imagined.

My opponent analyses Ditto, and Ditto is indeed a complex idea. I can distinguish Ditto into a color, and into a shape. Ditto had to exist in space so he was given a shape, and color, both are distinguishable ideas.

My opponent says we could be inspired to make the belief in God without proving it, pray tell, where would we get our inspiration from? How would he have made up a simple idea? You can combine elements together to form a multitude of different mixtures? (Incoming Envisage to teach me the name of whatever you make when you combine elements). You cannot however create a new element.

You never really tackled about how the ideas mind gets from experience are a posteriori and God is a priori. I raised the point about how God is an a priori construct and could not have originated from the combination of a posteriori constructs.

To conclude the resolution stands as affirmed.


My sister's finally visiting home from a year of teaching kids English in China, and I'm going to a camp for two weeks so I'm literally not able to find the time to make a rebuttal. My opponent should move on the tournament then. Again, sorry about this.
Debate Round No. 3


Fanath forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Ajab forfeited this round.


Fanath forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Fanath 7 years ago
Gotta catch em all!
Posted by Fanath 7 years ago
Lol. He originally brought up the Pokemon argument, I just went with it
Posted by Envisage 7 years ago
I have never seen the pokemon argument as a response to ontology...

Con is pulling out all the stops! :-D
Posted by Fanath 7 years ago
Do you know if Mikal even saw it? lol, I didn't get a response.
Posted by Ajab 7 years ago
Should you not until then post your argument, if Mikal gives me a minor penalty you will have to leave by Sunday.
Posted by Fanath 7 years ago
Sure, mikal might have some rule that applies to this. I can message him if you haven't already
Posted by Ajab 7 years ago
The choice is yours, either let me continue, or I shall concede I am find with either. :)
Since you are the hurt party you may decide, or is it appropriate to get Mikal involved, I think it is.
Until then I have made it 10,000 characters.
Posted by Fanath 7 years ago
Whatever floats your boat...
Posted by Ajab 7 years ago
Oh I am so sorry. Umm if you would like I shall forfeit the rest of the rounds. I did not realize that.
If you want I will make it 10,000 characters, or I will forfeit, this is my mistake I accept that.
Posted by Fanath 7 years ago
I think there was a misunderstanding... When you asked if we could write arguments in google docs, I thought you meant write it in docs then post the argument into, which of course anybody would be fine with. To confirm this I said "As in write your arguments in google docs then post it in arguments? Sure" I think by "it" Ajab thought I meant the link while I really meant to say to copy paste the argument itself...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by GOP 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.