INTRODUCTION:
Hello everyone.
I thank the opponent, Sir.Lancelot, for engaging me on this topic: When the reasoning on which the Ontological Argument stands is applied universally, we will have contradictions. As we do not accept contradictions, we have to reject the reasoning, regardless of whether its result is true or not. Its result maybe true even if its reasoning is faulty. As I have aforementioned in the introduction section, this disputation is not about whether god exists or not, not even whether the Ontological argument successfully proves the existence of god. What I am arguing here is that that reasoning yields contradiction.
In order to demonstrate that the Ontological argument's reasoning yields a contradiction, I am going to make a chess allegory. I will apply the logic into chess. Some of you maybe unfamiliar with chess theory, thus, first I am going to introduce you chessical terms I am going to use in order to demonstrate the necessarily contradictory nature of the Ontological argument.
THEORETICAL RESULT OF CHESS:
Chess is a theoretical game and it has a theoretical result: There are 3 ways chess can end: a win by white, a draw and a win by black. A chess game can end in 1 of these 3 results.
Theoretically, though unknown at the time of writing this answer (06/29/2025), chess is widely predicted to be a theoretical draw. Here is how Wiki defines it:
Solving chess consists of finding an optimal strategy for the game of
chess; that is, one by which one of the players (
White or Black) can always force either a victory or a draw (see
solved game).
And when we look at the Solved game article, here is what we see:
A
solved game is a
game whose outcome (win, lose or
draw) can be correctly predicted from any position, assuming that both players play perfectly. This concept is usually applied to
abstract strategy games, and especially to games with full information and no element of chance; solving such a game may use
combinatorial game theory or computer assistance.
Chess is a determinate, finite game. While its solution is not yet known (as of 29 June 2025), it is widely believed among theorists that it will eventually be solved as a draw with perfect play.
Chess has exactly three possible theoretical outcomes:
- A win by White,
- A win by Black,
- A draw.
Only one of these outcomes can be true. Let’s now formalize this with the three classical Laws of Non-Contradiction, which are cornerstones of all logical systems.
Given that chess has only 1 result (a win by white, a win by black or a draw), a reasoning that yields more than 1 possible result for chess is contradictory and thus should be rejected.
Now, if you understood what is meant by theoretical result of chess and what is intended via it, let us proceed into demonstrating how the logic behind the ontological argument yields contradictory result in chess.
CHESS RESULT AND THE LAWS OF NONCONTRADICTION:
A proposition is identical to itself.
If chess is a theoretical win for White, then it is a win for White.
- Law of Non-Contradiction:
A proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same respect.
Chess cannot be a forced win for both White and Black simultaneously.
- Law of the Excluded Middle:
For any proposition P, either P is true or its negation is true.
Chess must be either a win for White, a win for Black, or a draw — not more than one at once.
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT APPLIED TO CHESS:
Now, I will demonstrate that via the reasoning that is behind the Ontological argument, one can "prove" that chess is a theoretical win for both white and black, as well as being a theoretical draw: 3 contradictory answers.
The Ontological Attack: Chess is a forced win for white!
1) By definition, The Ontological Attack is the chess opening than which none greater or to which none equal to can be imagined.
2) By definition, The Ontological Attack is an attack that can not be defended against, that can not be avoided, that can not be evaded, that can not be repelled, an attack in which mate is inevitable.
3) An opening that necessarily exists in reality is greater than an opening that does not necessarily exist.
4) Thus, by definition, if The Ontological Attack exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine an opening that is greater than The Ontological Attack.
5) But we cannot imagine an opening that is greater than the Ontological Attack.
6) Thus, if The Ontological Attack exists in the mind as an idea, then The Ontological Attack necessarily exists in reality.
7) The Ontological Attack exists in the mind as an idea.
8) Therefore, The Ontological Attack necessarily exists in reality.
Conclusion: Therefore, Chess is a forced win for white. White plays The Ontological Attack and wins.
Now, the reasoning behind the Ontological arguments leads us into thinking Chess is a forced win for white. Philosophically speaking, this Ontological argument for Chess being win for white is as valid and sound as the Ontological argument for the existence of god. If we thus say chess is a theoretical win for white because the Ontological argument says so, one can simply develop same argument for Black.
The Ontological Counter-Attack: Chess is a forced win for Black!
1) By definition, The Ontological counter-attack is the opening than which none greater or to which none equal to can be imagined.
2) By definition, The Ontological counter-Attack is a counter-attack that can not be defended against, that can not be avoided, that can not be evaded, that can not be repelled, a counter-attack by black in which mate is inevitable for white.
3) An opening that necessarily exists in reality is greater than an opening that does not necessarily exist.
4) Thus, by definition, if The Ontological Counter-Attack exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine an opening that is greater than The Ontological Counter-Attack.
5) But we cannot imagine an opening that is greater than the Ontological counter-Attack.
6) Thus, if The Ontological counter-Attack exists in the mind as an idea, then The Ontological counter-Attack necessarily exists in reality.
7) The Ontological counter-Attack exists in the mind as an idea.
8) Therefore, The Ontological counter-Attack necessarily exists in reality.
Therefore, Chess is a forced win for black. Black plays The Ontological counterAttack and wins.
CONTRADICTION EMERGING FROM THE REASONING OF THE ONTOLOGICAL ATTACK:
Given that chess can have only 1 result: a win by white, a win by black or a draw, we arrive at contradiction when we follow the Ontological argument:
- The Ontological Aattack leads us to: Chess is a forced win for White.
- The Ontological Counter-attack leads to: Chess is a forced win for Black.
Then there is a third one, the Ontological Defense in which black forces a draw.
Imagine 3 philosophers of chess throwing the same 3 arguments at the same time, we will have 3 different results for chess, which is a clear contradiction as chess have only 1 result.
This is a direct violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. Accepting the reasoning of the ontological attack gives 3 contradictions:
Law of Identity (what is chess’s actual result?)
Law of Non-Contradiction (all cannot be true)
Law of Excluded Middle (cannot be all true or all false)
CONCLUSION:
The only reason we are able to derive these contradictory conclusions is because we are following the Ontological Argument:
- Define something arbitrarily as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.”
- Arbitrarily define necessary existence as a property into the concept.
- Then insist that existence must then follow.
When applied universally, this reasoning allows the necessary existence of mutually exclusive and contradictory results all at the same time. Therefore, it is a contradictory reasoning, which should be scorned at at best, something philosophers have been doing for decades.
If a form of argument yields contradictions when applied consistently, the reasoning must be rejected as unsound or invalid in form, regardless of its result/conclusion being true or not.
Note that, it is not about whether all those premises are true or not, valid or not, sound or not. It is just about assuming all premises and conclusion of the ontological argument is true, then it is same for chess as well.
I wish good luck to the opponent.
A “concede” button would be a good idea for the site yeah