The Ontological Argument is Sound
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
RESOLVED: The Ontological Argument is Sound
Definitions:
Ontological Argument: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 exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great 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 exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Maximally Great Being: Being that is Morally Perfect, all-knowing and all-powerful
Sound: Argument is valid and has true premises
3. If a maximally great 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 exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
We know an MGB could exist and is logically coherent, then it has to exist in every possible world. To illustrate this, let’s say we have 100 possible worlds. It is better to be in 56 of those 100 possible worlds than 14. It is better to be in more possible worlds than not. So, a maximally great being would have to maximally great in the fact that it exists in every possible world. Now, if God existed in every possible world, it would logically follow that God, an MGB, would exist in the actual world. Finally, if God existed in the actual world, it would exist now. God exists. God is then defined as a necessary being then. In Philosophy, there are 3 different types of beings:
To put this as simple as possible, step 3 is the most nonsensical and blatantly false of the overall case.Step 3 states: 3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.If I have to even explain how ridiculous a leap in logic this is, then you probably won't understand even if I explain.I'll let Pro try to defend it before tearing a bigger wound in step 3, in Round 2.
Firstly step 3 seems to be misworded, it reads: If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.but is meant to say 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
Pro is concluding that to be maximally great at all in any possible world therefore defaults the being to be omnipresent and omnipotent over all other plausible worlds.
You need to understand that by 'world' Pro actually means 'reality' not just planet within a reality.
We are running all possible versions of reality, so if a maximally great being exists in one possible reality, it doesn't remotely mean that the reality even is one of the realities occuring, especially not if we expand world/reality to mean the 'overall reality that all running versions of simulated reality run within'.
This maximally great being is only ever posited to be irrefutably possible in one of an infinite number of possible realities, nowhere at all does the Ontological argument explain why we should even assume all possible realities to be equally probably, nor why we should leap from the conclusion that there potentially is a being that transcends all realities if it's real, to then go 'okay therefore it's real and transcends to whichever reality this one is even if this reality is the only reality and doesn't have that being at all'.
If you can't understand how ridiculous step 3 is, you just don't comprehend logic. That's all to say. There is no way at all to leap from a 'potentially exists' conclusion to a 'definitely exists because it's possible' conclusion.
The reality with the maximally great being has to first be proven to be a running reality that is actually in existence, not just a potential reality, to then conclude that this being is transcending to realities that exclude its existence and changing the rules of them.If the reality/realities that lack that maximally great being is/are the only real one(s) then it follows that it all falls apart at step 3.
- Necessary Beings
- Possible world Simulation
- Logical incoherent worlds
- Probability of a world has no starting point
There's several angles that could have been used to take down pro's case, of which just calling it nonsensical ridiculousness was not one. Con chose to delay connecting his concise case to the issue of soundness (what the debate is about) until after pro could no longer reply, and even then relied of voter knowledge of soundness instead of expanding it into a justified argument.
Pro did an fine job expanding the basic case, to infer why we don't all have the greatest pizza ever in every possible kitchen at all given times (they wouldn't have a soul to understand they are MG, thus would not be MG as they would be greater with a soul). Which is a weakness to the Ontological Argument which still could have been exploited but was not.
The best part of con's case was explaining that world means universe (which everyone probably already knew); even if it got needlessly confusing with talk of simulated realities. The mention of simulations, strengthened the replies using the math to MGB comparison, which con then chose to drop. This lack of motivation for follow through, basically hands the debate to pro by default.
Con just isn't giving me enough to go on in this debate. I buy that there might be problems, but "might" isn't good enough to win a debate round. Pro does more than enough to show that the third step in his argument has merit, and Con's efforts to address those arguments largely avoid them altogether. Instead, Con keeps repeating the same general argument, to which I see several responses that get no attention. If Con built out his argument a little more and directly engaged with the responses he received, I think this could have had a different outcome, but as it stands, Con just didn't engage in the debate sufficiently to win it.
Throughout the debate, con seems to misunderstand pro's point that a MGB is a logical necessity as defined by modal logic. Therefore, a MGB must necessarily exist in every possible world. Despite this, con spends much of the debate arguing that pro needs to prove that "one of" the realities wherein a MGB exists is the reality we live in. That was already established by pro in premises 3, 5, and 6 of the modal ontological argument.
Con refusing to answer pro's arguments in round 1 and insulting the intelligence of anyone who buys his argument merits losing the conduct points.
I don't even know what the Ontological Argument is. Besides, I've noticed that I'm getting worse at debates. I think I'm like an injured athlete; used to be good, but needs months of break time. Plus, my parents don't let me access DART too much, so I doubt I'll be able to respond easily. I tried debates recently before, and I had to forfeit because I have a hard time accessing DART.
would you like to have a debate on that?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:1; 1 point to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague and ignored just too many factors (i.e arguments, G&S, sourcing)... This can be avoided in the future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading. In this case, if you wished to vote "tie" on all other categories then some level of presented reasoning is required, especially with the arguments category (which is the meat of the debate.)
**************************************************
If God exists, he doesn't meet the 4 Os.
That's a lie and you know it.
thx for your vote!
pls vote if you have the time.
The necessity of the being is literally a lie, because step 3 is a lie and 'necessary is in direct violation of premise 2 saying 'some'.
@RM
Arent you Pagan, this fits your beliefs, wbut whatever I unblocked you for now
Whatever that God thinks, it's moral and perfect
define: morally perfect
you wont let me accept because you are afraid. Unblock me!!!!!!!!!
Also 30000 character limit ;)
Make this two weeks and I'll do this
Yes, I was thinking along the lines of Guanilo's original objection, and copies of it, which, I do not believe to be sound either. Looking forward to this one
a possible world is a world where a possible thing exists
Like a world where atheists make sense is possible, but not in this actual world(my opinion)
Like the replace the object BS
Don't worry I already have a rebuttal for that objection
This ought to be an interesting debate. I'd be interested to see if the classical objections are brought up.
I would love to argue on the pro side as well. lol. Although I dont think I've studied this enough to debate on.
I'm personally not convinced that every possible world must actually exist.