Instigator / Pro
0
1450
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic

My Opponent's Ontological Argument is Unsound

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
0
2
Spelling and grammar points
0
1
Conduct points
0
1

With 1 vote and 7 points ahead, the winner is ...

User_2006
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
7
1415
rating
47
debates
36.17%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Pro
I waive as per format.
Con
I will be proving a valid ontological argument. The ontological argument must satisfy criteria in which it proves the existence of God.

I am no expert on this and I am the man who just transfers the documents, but it is certainly good to try something new. 

Anyways: Here is one:

1. Classical ontological argument

  1. It is possible that God, a maximally powerful entity exists.
  2. If such an entity could possibly exist, it could exist in some worlds. 
  3. If God exists in some worlds, it means it would also exist in reality, since that world is connected to ours according to quantum mechanics. 
  4. Thus if God exists in some worlds, it also exists in reality.
  5. If such entity exists in reality, it does exist. 
It is a simple spell, but quite unbreakable. I would use this as the opening argument and watch my opponent either concede, disprove it, or forfeit. 


Round 2
Pro
To my knowledge this ontological argument is brand new. Cool.
 
The argument is logically valid, so I will only be falsifying the premises that are wrong.
 
For this round I will only address premise 3.
 
P3) If God exists in some worlds, it means it would also exist in reality, since that world is connected to ours according to quantum mechanics. 
 
I think I see the weakness of this debate format, since it would have been a lot more effective if Con has gone 1st and therefore laid down the definitions and terminology for the argument to work, and that a disproof would also be valid. We did not start out with predefined terms so there is a chance that this round misses the mark on terminology alone.
 
"Worlds"
First that needs to be clarified is what Pro means by “world”. In philosophy, and in possible world semantics, it is a logically consistent and coherent way things “could be”. The world we live in today, with space, time, the universe, etc. is one such possible world. Potential possible worlds would be a universe where stars were shaped like unicorns or one where bigfoot really does exist. Some possible worlds may not even have a universe and be more abstract.
 
Assuming
 
“God”
The definition of God is essential for this argument to work on any level, since there must be a special property of God that means that if he exists in some hypothetically possible world then he would exist in reality. Otherwise we literally would substitute the term “God” for absolutely anything, including things that would contradict God. E.g.
 
“An omnipotent monkey”
“A creator unicorn”
“A maximally malevolent & gratuitiously evil world”
 
Etc.
 
These would all be possible entities that would not exist in the real world (this one) if God exists in this one. To re-write Con’s argument using an omnipotent monkey (OM):
 
1.      It is possible that OM, a maximally powerful entity exists.
2.      If such an entity could possibly exist, it could exist in some worlds. 
3.      If OM exists in some worlds, it means it would also exist in reality, since that world is connected to ours according to quantum mechanics. 
4.      Thus if OM exists in some worlds, it also exists in reality.
5.      If such entity exists in reality, it does exist. 
 
Quantum Mechanics
Quantum mechanics is a phenomenon that takes place within this world within the set of rules of physics within this world (governing space, energy and waves). Possible worlds are hypothetical, they do not exist in the same way as this one, and neither can they interact with this world. This P3 is false.
 
You can create a possible world very easily where quantum mechanics does not apply. Whether or not a possible world where quantum mechanics does apply and therefore can interact with this world would depend on the physics of this world being able to. I assert that Con cannot possible know this.
 
This P3 doesn’t follow, the argument is unsound.
 
Request of Con
This round is mostly more of a wash then I would like it to be, I would like to ask Con to define his terms and explain some of his premises so that myself and readers can better conceive of what gives this argument mileage.

Con
I thank Envisage for responding.

Anyways, as per the format, I could refute in this round.

To my knowledge this ontological argument is brand new. Cool.
 
The argument is logically valid, so I will only be falsifying the premises that are wrong.
Ok, so my opponent agrees with some of it, that is cool. Just a point worth mentioning. However, if he can completely negate P3 from being true, then he has met his burden of proof and will win. 

P3) If God exists in some worlds, it means it would also exist in reality, since that world is connected to ours according to quantum mechanics. 
 
I think I see the weakness of this debate format, since it would have been a lot more effective if Con has gone 1st and therefore laid down the definitions and terminology for the argument to work, and that a disproof would also be valid. We did not start out with predefined terms so there is a chance that this round misses the mark on terminology alone.
I honestly was scared that my opponent will define the terms for me since I was so busy at the time, however, luckily my opponent had only inquired about the definitions, but never actually defined it. 

Second, I am not a troll. Not that anyone asked, but I am not trying to troll by exploiting semantics. In fact, I didn't. 

"Worlds"
First that needs to be clarified is what Pro means by “world”. In philosophy, and in possible world semantics, it is a logically consistent and coherent way things “could be”. The world we live in today, with space, time, the universe, etc. is one such possible world. Potential possible worlds would be a universe where stars were shaped like unicorns or one where bigfoot really does exist. Some possible worlds may not even have a universe and be more abstract.
I will list a source below.
So what is this? Apparently, in higher dimensions, there are alternate universes, either similar to us, different to us, or in different dimensions. So yeah, there really could be a universe in which planets look like computers and asteroids are shaped like dragon horns. 

Since every universe we could imagine could theoretically exist, thus, one with a maximally powerful being could exist. In fact, in different universes, the laws of physics could alter, so although not in this world, God could exist in some other world in which logic really supports a God existing in their humanity. No matter how you define God, there is theoretically a corresponding world corresponding to that God. 


In other words, since God theoretically exists in at least one alternative world and the alternative worlds are theoretically connected to reality, thus God exists in reality. Period. 

“God”
The definition of God is essential for this argument to work on any level, since there must be a special property of God that means that if he exists in some hypothetically possible world then he would exist in reality. Otherwise we literally would substitute the term “God” for absolutely anything, including things that would contradict God. E.g.
 
“An omnipotent monkey”
“A creator unicorn”
“A maximally malevolent & gratuitiously evil world”
 
Etc.
 
These would all be possible entities that would not exist in the real world (this one) if God exists in this one. To re-write Con’s argument using an omnipotent monkey (OM):
 
1.      It is possible that OM, a maximally powerful entity exists.
2.      If such an entity could possibly exist, it could exist in some worlds. 
3.      If OM exists in some worlds, it means it would also exist in reality, since that world is connected to ours according to quantum mechanics. 
4.      Thus if OM exists in some worlds, it also exists in reality.
5.      If such entity exists in reality, it does exist. 
Nope, Yep, I just said. God is just a maximally powerful thing, whether it is a monkey, a force field, or a unicorn. Did I specify? No. In fact, anything can be God. We don't know what God is, and it is an abstract idea, and it can be anything. Because of this evident truth, the bolded premises hold no value towards my opponent's side, although it holds some towards mine. 

Quantum Mechanics
Quantum mechanics is a phenomenon that takes place within this world within the set of rules of physics within this world (governing space, energy and waves). Possible worlds are hypothetical, they do not exist in the same way as this one, and neither can they interact with this world. This P3 is false.
 
You can create a possible world very easily where quantum mechanics does not apply. Whether or not a possible world where quantum mechanics does apply and therefore can interact with this world would depend on the physics of this world being able to. I assert that Con cannot possible know this.
 
This P3 doesn’t follow, the argument is unsound.
Possible? You mean possibly?

Again, no matter if this universe has the ability to contain the laws of quantum mechanics, they are all, directly or indirectly, connected to this universe, i.e the real one we perceive. Maybe they don't call it quantum mechanics, or maybe they use another system, but every universe is connected to one another. 

Request of Con
This round is mostly more of a wash then I would like it to be, I would like to ask Con to define his terms and explain some of his premises so that myself and readers can better conceive of what gives this argument mileage.
Consider whatever is written above my best answer. 

Conclusion:
  1. God is maximally powerful because otherwise, it won't be God as to this debate.
  2. Because God could exist, it means its universe is connected to ours, and thus it exists.
I finish my argument with a bit of good luck to my opponent.

Sources(My opponent has listed none yet)
    Round 3
    Pro
    Forfeited
    Con
    BoP is on Pro. I extend my arguments. 
    Round 4
    Pro
    Forfeited
    Con
    My opponent has forfeited. Extend all points, if I even can. Since I had dropped all his points in R2 and my opponent has yet to make any response, Vote Con!