ReventonRage's Debates: [clear]
All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
Winning Position: No, the argument is invalid
33
No, the argument is invalid
3
Yes, the argument is valid
Recently, I created the debate asking theists and atheists alike to come together to comment on the "Problem of Evil". Now, to be "fair" to the theists, I've created another debate and I would like to ask you, regardless of whether you're a theist or an atheist, to comment on what I think is one of the more challenging arguments for theism - the "Ontological Argument".
To give a little background, the Ontological Argument was first formulated by the theologian St. Anselm in Proslogion II-III. Since then, many scholars have formulated their own version of this Argument. The arguably most popular version of the Ontological Argument was formulated by Prof. Alvin Plantinga in his 1967 book entitled God and Other Minds.
The Ontological Argument:
Assumption for reducio: God exists in the understanding but not in reality.
Existence in reality is greater than existence in understanding alone.
A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can be conceived.
A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (From (1) and (2).)
A being greater than God cannot be conceived. (From (3) and (4).)
It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (That is the underlying definition of "God".)
Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (From (1), (5), (6).)
God exists in the understanding.
Ergo: Hence God exists in reality. (From (7), (8).)
Now, to avoid any discrepancies, Prof. William Lane Craig contributed to this Argument by stating categorically that, "Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence and moral perfection.
Winning Position: Yes, the argument is valid
85
Yes, the argument is valid
62
No, the argument is not valid
To fellow atheists,
What I have created here is a different form of the "God debate", by inviting you to debate on whether "The Problem of Evil" has any force as an argument against the existence of God.
To theists,
While you are invited to debate as well, please refrain from pointless ad hominems and engage in the rigour of logical and intellectual debate with the atheists.
A skeleton outline:
1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. (As defined by Christian theologians and philosophers.)2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to elimiate all evil.3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.5. Evil exists.6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God does not have the power to eliminate all evil, or does not know when evil exists, or does not have the desire to eliminate all evil.Conclusion: Therefore, God doesn't exist.
(Taken from the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)