Instigator

S5 should be rejected as a sound system in the Modal Ontological Argument

Open challenge

First participant to accept the challenge takes the contender's role

The debate will be automatically deleted in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
15,000
Contender
Open
Description
I haven't seen anyone on this site attack S5 as a logical system when attempting to refute the Modal Ontological Argument. This debate should be impossible to accept; if one somehow accepts, it entails automatic forfeiture. If one wishes to accept, please comment or message me.
Resolution:
System 5 (S5): one of five systems of modal logic proposed by Clarence Irving Lewis and Cooper Harold Langford.
"Should be rejected": i.e shouldn't be deemed as sound argumentation for ratifying the Modal Ontological Argument.
Modal Ontological Argument: An argument which affirms the existence of a "maximally great being" (i.e God) and postulates that its necessary existence is true because it is possibly necessarily true.
Format:
R1: Opening arguments
R2: Rebuttals
R3: Rebuttals/Defence
R4: Rebuttals/Defence (no new arguments)
Round 1
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 2
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Added:
--> @semperfortis
The demogralhic is very young and even the more mature users are not that sophisticated about philosophy. I personally could debate either side of this competently but it would be boring. I usually hide resolutions like this by applying them to pop culture. A solipsist argument for example would get a matrix type resolution.
#9
Added:
--> @semperfortis
I'll be surprised if most people on DART know what the debate is about. I know I don't.
#8
Added:
I might have to wait a while for a challenger.
Instigator
#7
Added:
--> @Wylted
Yes, that God is that of all positive properties. Godel himself didn't really define what constitutes the positivity of a property, so everyone has been speculating ever since!
Instigator
#6
Added:
--> @semperfortis
Yeah, I was more thinking of Godel's ontological argument which if I remember correctly defines god differently
#5
Added:
--> @Wylted
That would only be true if one were accept the definition of a "maximally great being" to be logically consistent I guess.
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @semperfortis
Well, if the system of logic is correct God 100% exists. If not, than you know it is up in the air.
#3
Added:
--> @Wylted
Yes, it is very controversial.
Instigator
#2
Added:
I habe heard other people say this but I have never seen them give an actual premise. This might be interesting.
#1
No votes yet