Instigator / Pro
21
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#1722

The Ontological Argument is Sound

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
2

After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Dr.Franklin
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
11
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.