Instigator / Pro
Points: 21

The Ontological Argument is Sound

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Dr.Franklin
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
Points: 11
Description
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
Round 1
Published:
thx for accepting this debate RM

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.

This argument is very simple and true. If an MGB(Maximally Great Being) could exist, then an MGB would have to exist because it is maximally great. The MGB here is God. Let’s go through this argument with each premise.

First, it is certainly possible that an MGB could exist. An MGB would have to be all-knowing, all-powerful and morally perfect. However, only a maximally great being could exist instead of a maximally great pizza for example because it is an object and objects have no intrinsic value to rank it whether it is great or not. With a being who has a soul and a state of mind, we can conclude that it is maximally great. It is the greatest being ever. Next, if it is possible that an MGB exists then it has to be in a possible world. A possible world meaning any other world that includes different things that are logically coherent. A unicorn or a leprechaun exists in a possible world because it could exist. However, a Married Bachelor or a circle does not have pi as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.

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:

1.Contingent being: A being that could exist, but may not necessarily exist (such as a unicorn) 

2. Impossible being: A being that is impossible, such as an invisible pink unicorn or a married bachelor. 

3. Necessary being: A being who exists necessarily and whose non-existence is impossible (such as numbers, logic, etc). 

God is a Necessary being because, in order to be maximally great, it has to be necessary. It is not an MGB if it is impossible to be formed or a Contingent being that could exist. Follow logically, and if an MGB could exist, which is most certainly can, then it has to exist.{1}


Conclusion

Through deductive and logical reasoning, God has to exist


Published:
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.
Round 2
Published:
thx for the reply, RM

REBUTTAL

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.
In order to be maximally great, a being must exist in every possible world. You didn't explain it and you write it off as me not understanding, this is not an argument, you have to explain it.

Let's say there are 100 possible worlds

It is greater to exist in 56 of those worlds then 55, it is greater to exist in 57 of those worlds than 56, and so on till you get the maximally great being that exists in all 100 possible worlds, this is just logic. 

This really wasn't that much of an argument
Published:
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.

Secondly, this is impossible to conclude. 

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. 
Round 3
Published:
thx, RM

REBUTTAL

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.
It is implied already.



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. 
Yes, this makes sense and it logically follows, here is my explanation again.

Let's say there are 100 possible worlds

It is greater to exist in 56 of those worlds then 55, it is greater to exist in 57 of those worlds than 56, and so on till you get the maximally great being that exists in all 100 possible worlds, this is just logic. 



 You need to understand that by 'world' Pro actually means 'reality' not just planet within a reality.
Yes I already explained that:

A possible world meaning any other world that includes different things that are logically coherent. A unicorn or a leprechaun exists in a possible world because it could exist. However, a Married Bachelor or a circle does not have pi as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.


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'.
The "reality" IS one of the realities occurring. If anything is possible and logically coherent than you can imagine it a possible world/reality. A MGB can exist so you can imagine it. A MGB is maximally Great, so it exists in every possible world. This is not a rebuttal. It is just a false statement that represent unclear understanding of what a MGB is.

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'.
Whether Possible worlds are more or less probable is not the question or really relevant to the argument. Any possible world that has any difference from this world is a possible world. No matter the probability of anything, there is no way to measure the probability of a possible world because there is no starting point of reference. To transcend any reality is simple. For example. in every possible world, Math exist. Math transcends all realities, you cant have a world without math. It's the same thing for a MGB. You need to have a world where a MBG exists if it is possible. This is where the Necessary being argument comes into play as I reiterate:

1.Contingent being: A being that could exist, but may not necessarily exist (such as a unicorn) 

2. Impossible being: A being that is impossible, such as an invisible pink unicorn or a married bachelor. 

3. Necessary being: A being who exists necessarily and whose non-existence is impossible (such as numbers, logic, etc). 

God is a Necessary being because, in order to be maximally great, it has to be necessary. It is not an MGB if it is impossible to be formed or a Contingent being that could exist. Follow logically, and if an MGB could exist, which is most certainly can, then it has to exist.

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. 
Unless it has to exist, like Math. A MGB would be necessary if it is maximally great.


Published:
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.
Round 4
Published:
thx, RM

REBUTTAL

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.

The reality IS proven, Any reality can be proven to be true. It doesn't have to be in existence, it could be but it doesn't have to. The fundamental idea of a possible world is a world that could theoretically exits without any logical fallacies.If you deny the fundamental idea of a possible world with a necessary being then THAT is not understanding logic or Philosophy. There is no world or reality that lacks necessary beings, that's why it's necessary. It's like math. It HAS to exist in order for a world to exist.

CONCLUSION

My opponent dropped many points like:

  • Necessary Beings
  • Possible world Simulation
  • Logical incoherent worlds
  • Probability of a world has no starting point
I don't think RM tried very hard on this one. 2 of his arguments were lacking and he did not rebuttal any specific points. 

Vote Pro!
Published:
The Ontological Argument doesn't conclude that a maximally great being is viable, it concludes that it irrefutably exists due to being possible. It indeed does have to prove that the possible realities that contain a maximally great being are one of the real ones (if not the sole one). If the reality lacks this being, step 3 most blatantly is proven wrong but even if it has the maximally great being, step 3 asserts that this isn't necessary and thus the Ontological Argument is unsound.
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
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.
#20
Added:
--> @Alec
would you like to have a debate on that?
Instigator
#19
Added:
--> @Pinkfreud08
**************************************************
>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.)
**************************************************
#18
Added:
If God exists, he doesn't meet the 4 Os.
#17
Added:
--> @whiteflame
That's a lie and you know it.
Contender
#16
Added:
--> @Patmos, @whiteflame
thx for your vote!
Instigator
#15
Added:
--> @blamonkey, @whiteflame, @Ragnar, @oromagi, @Virtuoso
pls vote if you have the time.
Contender
#14
Added:
--> @Patmos
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'.
Contender
#13
Added:
@RM
Arent you Pagan, this fits your beliefs, wbut whatever I unblocked you for now
Instigator
#12
Added:
--> @drafterman
Whatever that God thinks, it's moral and perfect
Instigator
#11
Added:
define: morally perfect
#10
Added:
you wont let me accept because you are afraid. Unblock me!!!!!!!!!
Contender
#9
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
Also 30000 character limit ;)
#8
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
Make this two weeks and I'll do this
#7
Added:
--> @Dr.Franklin
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
#6
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.