CreateDebate


Debate Info

80
80
This makes a lot of sense. TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
Debate Score:160
Arguments:183
Total Votes:185
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 This makes a lot of sense. (61)
 
 TOOTH FAIRY!!!! (63)

Debate Creator

lolzors93(3225) pic



Plantinga's ontological argument

Definitions:

maximally excellent being - a being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect

maximally great being - a being that is maximally excellent in every possible world

Argument:

1. A maximally great being is possible (It is not logically incomprehensible)

2. A maximally great being exists in some possible world (P1)

3. A maximally great being exists in every possible world (P2; apply definition of maximally great being)

4. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (P3)

 

This makes a lot of sense.

Side Score: 80
VS.

TOOTH FAIRY!!!!

Side Score: 80
3 points

Seems legit.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
GuitarGuy(6105) Clarified
1 point

Let's be honest Srom, you probably didn't understand it. You just know that he believes in God.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
1 point

I actually do understand it because it I have seen a lot of stuff from books talking about Premise 1, 2, and 3 about different arguments.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
1 point

This argument gets rid of both Kant's objection and Gaunilo's objection. The only way it can be defeated is by arguing against the first premise.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
1 point

That's true, and you have not demonstrated it at all, so you still have nothing.

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Demonstrated what?

Side: This makes a lot of sense.

I don't know of anything that could prove it impossible.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
1 point

But the biblical god is not a maximally great being.

Take the example of a maximally great politician. This politician will be so great that everyone will listen to them and agree with them. They will have a perfect system of government.

A maximally great god would obviously have a hell of a lot more power, but the same would apply. Everyone worships and loves the maximally great god, and can find no fault with It. Nothing can stand up against this most powerful being, and nothing can soil it's harmonious kingdom, which, as this being is maximally great, would be everything.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
3 points

Maximally great being does not necessitate everyone liking it or wanting to be with it.

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
Elvira(3447) Clarified
1 point

A great person would be even greater if everyone liked them.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
Nebeling(1118) Disputed
0 points

That's your judgement. You have absolutely no way of objectively knowing what maximally great means. You need to have infallible certainty about what 'maximally great' means, and since you don't this argument won't work.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
1 point

It is impossible for a human being to comprehend the qualities of a maximally great being. Why is it maximally great to be existence? Why is it maximally great to be benevolent rather than malevolent?

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
4 points

It is impossible for a human being to comprehend the qualities of a maximally great being.

Not at all. A maximally great being is one which is maximally excellent in all possible worlds. A maximally excellent being is one that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. There are limits to those that are conceivable.

Why is it maximally great to be existence?

That was Kant's objection. This is not an argument around it being great to exist. It is an argument based in definition of it being great when in all possible worlds.

Why is it maximally great to be benevolent rather than malevolent?

Evil is the lack of good. Morally perfect is an aspect of greatness, since evil is the lack of.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
0 points

Not at all. A maximally great being is one which is maximally excellent in all possible worlds. A maximally excellent being is one that is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. There are limits to those that are conceivable.

You are awesome. He tells you that you can't comprehend what a maximally great being is and the only response you have is that he is wrong because a maximally great being would be maximally excellent. Thus proving you can't demonstrate the qualities you hope to show.

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
1 point

What about this for logic:

1) A world without a maximally great being being possible.

2) If such a word is possible then 'maximal greatness' is impossible.

3) Maximal greatness is impossible.

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
4 points

That argument is simply arguing against the first premise, whether or not a maximally great being is possible or not. Either a maximally great being exists or doesn't exist. Your argument assumes by premise one that it cannot exist. Hence, it is begging the question, since everything is possible unless proven impossible.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
Atrag(5448) Disputed
2 points

Whereas as the ontological argument assumes that it is possible and also begs the question. Like every other argument for God, it comes down to faith yet again - do you believe that it is possible that such a being exists?

It is just as rational to say a maximally great being is possible and therefore exists as to say a world without a maximally great being is possible so a maximally great being does not exist. Plantinga himself states that it is up to the individual to decide which logic the rational individual follows.

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!

I don't see how P2 can be confirmed. We can't comprehend this being or test it in our own world and we can't even test for other worlds so we don't even know if those exist let alone what is in them. I don't agree with P2. You can't say that unless you can prove it

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
3 points

In philosophy, possible worlds are possible realities, not actual realities. It is a modal logic necessary premise.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.

Okay so in philosophy it's okay to pretend that made up worlds are realities. So one of these worlds that were made up includes a god in it. So this also means that one of these worlds could also have magic. And wizards and fairies and underpants gnomes. And if your premises follow the same way then those must exist in our reality....I'm no philosophy student, but I dot see how imaginary things in some imaginary hypothetical world follow any premises into our reality..

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
Atrag(5448) Disputed
2 points

If a maximally great being is possible then it must exist because existence is a quality of a maximally great being - is the idea.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.

Thats idiotic. My imaginary friend must exist because i defined him as existing. That is fucking retarded .

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
1 point

This argument doesn't get rid of Kant’s objection. In order for god to exist in all possible words, then existence must be a great making property. If existence isn't a great making property, then a maximally great being doesn't need to necessarily exist in all.possible worlds.

Another argument against this the question of great. This first appeared in a debate I did and on a blog I write for.

It assumes an objective standard of great, but this standard can’t coexist with God.

Great is the working link in the chain. If we took “great” and added “weak” the arguments would fail. If the standard of great is subjective, then the argument can’t objectively prove God exists, since subjectivity is only in the mind.

So, where does the standard of great comes from to say that God is the greatest possible being?

I can think of 2 ways

1. The standard is above God

2. The standard comes from God/God’s nature/created by God.

Both ways can’t fit with the Ontological arguments.

The standard is above God

This can’t be true under a theistic world view, because it would undermine a God, by saying there’s something above him that he’s subject to. It also means the source of such a standard must be the ultimate of great thing, which God is suppose to be. I’m sure this will be regarded as false by most.

The standard comes from God/God’s nature/created by God.

This however would mean the arguments are committing the fallacy of begging the question. Since God, being the greatest must necessarily exist, but “great” is set by God. It’s like trying to prove a maximally fast car exists, but you say “fast” is set by how fast the car you’re trying to prove is going.

If “great” is set by the being, then saying God necessarily exists because it is the greatest, is saying God must necessarily exist, because God is most like himself.

http://doubtingdave.com/a-response-to-the-ontological-argument/

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

This argument doesn't get rid of Kant’s objection. In order for god to exist in all possible words, then existence must be a great making property. If existence isn't a great making property, then a maximally great being doesn't need to necessarily exist in all.possible worlds.

It is irrelevant if it is a great making property. The definition of a maximally great being is such that even if being real is not a great making property, it is still apart of the definition.

Great is the working link in the chain. If we took “great” and added “weak” the arguments would fail. If the standard of great is subjective, then the argument can’t objectively prove God exists, since subjectivity is only in the mind.

We are not talking about great making properties. We are talking about a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect. Great making properties is irrelevant.

And even if you wanted to say that this is referring to great making properties, the things listed are confined positive attributes (meaning there to be a maximum limit that is conceivable - being able to do all things, knowing all things, and being morally perfect; "all" is simply a notion of everything and is not begging the question or a factor of insufficiency for God), not negative. If you say great making properties, then you could say being great in power and not power, which would be a direct contradiction.

Try again later?

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
Anate(16) Disputed
2 points

That's the very problem, existence isn't a property something has, it's what lets a thing have properties. If existence isn't a part of the definition, then it doesn't need to exist in all worlds.

How are great making properties irrelevant? If a tri omni properties aren't great, then how can the argument work? The entire point of the my objection is that there is a maximum conceivable limit. The question is, where did the limit come from? You misunderstood the objection.

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
1 point

Possible because we don't currently possess the knowledge to prove or disprove his possibility.

Really this is a weird failure of language because it's possible for someone to develop cancer or catch a cold, etc, and we know why these things are possible because we can observe and measure these things.

We really don't have any tools for measuring the validity of a god. The idea here insists that god is possible? But what if it's possible that he's not possible? In any possible universe? You can't really discredit the possibility that god is simply an impossibility in all possible realities. Infinite possibilities doesn't necessarily translate to all things being possible, you see.

Or to put it another way, a maximal being doesn't necessarily have to be possible in one universe or any universe, and the current possibility of such a maximal being hinges solely on our inability to observe and accurately measure the possibility of such a being. Y'know, it's like there's multiple kinds possible.

It's really a silly train of logic, I think.

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

We really don't have any tools for measuring the validity of a god. The idea here insists that god is possible? But what if it's possible that he's not possible? In any possible universe? You can't really discredit the possibility that god is simply an impossibility in all possible realities. Infinite possibilities doesn't necessarily translate to all things being possible, you see.

The argument, as philosophers, both theistic and atheistic, have agreed upon, can only be defeated at premise 1, which is whether God is possible or not. Hence, the only way to defeat it is to say that God is logically incomprehensible. If He is not logically incomprehensible, then He is real, by definition. Plantinga even admitted that this is up the the person to decide; however, in what way would He be illogical?

It's really a silly train of logic, I think.

Philosophers think that this is one of the more brilliant logical formulations. People write books on this.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
Warlin(1214) Disputed
1 point

The argument, as philosophers, both theistic and atheistic, have agreed upon, can only be defeated at premise 1, which is whether God is possible or not. Hence, the only way to defeat it is to say that God is logically incomprehensible. If He is not logically incomprehensible, then He is real, by definition. Plantinga even admitted that this is up the the person to decide; however, in what way would He be illogical?

Nonsense! The first premise takes a leap in logic by assuming that such a maximal being is possible in any possible universe.

It's the burden of the person who makes the argument to prove that they are indeed possible. And then we get back into the classic argument of 'you can't prove that god isn't real' and 'well you can't prove that he is.'

It's not a very brilliant formula because it doesn't work, ya dork.

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
1 point

Your definition of maximally great may violate the word maximally. You have to demonstrate that the world allows for your definition of maximally. The word maximally means the maximum allowed. You have not demonstrated that a maximally great being would be able to have the properties listed.

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

What? Maximal power is all-powerful, maximal knowledge is all-knowing, and maximal morality is morally perfect. That is what it is defined as. Everything is possible until proven impossible. Hence, it is your job to argue that it is not possible.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Wrong, maximal means the most that is possibly allowed. You have no evidence that the universe will allow an all powerful being. Therefore, you cannot define maximally powerful as all powerful.

That is what it is defined as.

I define God differently, therefore He doesn't exist. Your definition is worthless.

Everything is possible until proven impossible.

I say it is possible that we live in a world without God, prove me wrong.

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
1 point

How can God be omnibenevolvent if evil exists? .

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

He has a plan that includes it but is not evil Himself. Refer to Genesis 50:20

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
2 points

Thank you. I needed that verse. god bless you, my brother. .

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
1 point

X exists in all possible worlds.

X in logically comprehensible.

X exists in our world.

X = any non-contradictory entity.

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

You are simply renaming God as X. Why would this being be anything other than God? And if you are going into Gaunilo's objection, then I would say that it is unintelligible, since this being, for example a great island, cannot be comprehended, since at what level is it maximum'ed? Hence, not every non-contradictory entity exists in the actual world, since the only maximum possible things are already listed.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
Stryker(849) Disputed
1 point

X could be the Christian god, as you have defined him as maximal in modality, but X could also be something like a thought-gnome, but in addition to being a normal thought-gnome, it is also maximal in modality.

This thought-gnome is not self-contradictory, so it is possible, and it is defined as not contingent, it follows (using the argument you have presented) that at least this one though-gnome exists in our would.

It is possible I am misunderstanding your argument, but from my understanding you would have to demonstrate that a thought-gnome who is maximal in modality is impossible, if you can't you have to accept its existence.

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
1 point

I'd like to add another argument. It comes from Ryan Stenger.

A. It is possible that p.

B. Necessarily, if it is possible that God exists, then it is necessary that God exists.

C. Necessarily, if God exists, then it is not the case that p.

D. Therefore, it is not possible that God exists. (from A, B, & C)

Various plugins for P can be used. Like,

1. Evil exists and a God is incompatible with it.

2. Minds can only exist in the physical world.

3. Free non god beings always do what is morally wrong.

4. Omnipotence is impossible

5. Being morally perfect is impossible

6. Omniscience is impossible.

Basically, at the very least it makes the ontological argument on equal footing as this argument. However, the ontological argument doesn't refute this because we can only say it is possible that a MGB exists, but we're not limited to one P. So, it would be more possible that all cases of the modal argument for atheism are true than the ontological argument.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ryan_stringer/modal-atheism.html

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

A. It is possible that p.

B. Necessarily, if it is possible that God exists, then it is necessary that God exists.

C. Necessarily, if God exists, then it is not the case that p.

D. Therefore, it is not possible that God exists. (from A, B, & C)

It assumes for one point and then assumes for another point. The argument as philosophers agree is that God is either impossible or necessary. We don't deny that, while your argument already assumes that God is impossible. This argument is not proving God; it is displaying God in such a way to make it that if God is logically comprehensible, then He exists. You need to do some more research on it from actual philosophers.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
1 point

1. A maximally great being is possible (It is not logically incomprehensible)

To suppose that a maximally great being exists, one must also suppose a maximum or limit to it's greatness. In other words the being must be finite. If a being is infinite, it can never be entirely comprehensible, and neither would "maximally great" be a logical way of describing such a being.

2. A maximally great being exists in some possible world (P1)

A being that is -thought to be- maximally great can be supposed, sure. A -possible world- is one that MAY exist only as a supposition, and therefore may be incorrectly called a world. The best this argument can do is suppose what might be. It does not logically follow that since a maximally great being can be supposed to exist, that it necessarily exists beyond the realm of our imagination.

3. A maximally great being exists in every possible world (P2; apply definition of maximally great being)

Maybe the maximum amount of "worlds" (you are abusing the term IMO) a being can exist in is limited to one.

4. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (P3)

a being (possibly mis-characterized as maximally great) could exist as nothing but imaginative activity

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

To suppose that a maximally great being exists, one must also suppose a maximum or limit to it's greatness. In other words the being must be finite. If a being is infinite, it can never be entirely comprehensible, and neither would "maximally great" be a logical way of describing such a being.

There are maximums to power, knowledge, and morality. "All" is intrinsically a maximum, since you cannot do anything more than everything or know anything more than everything or be more morally perfect.

A being that is -thought to be- maximally great can be supposed, sure. A -possible world- is one that MAY exist only as a supposition, and therefore may be incorrectly called a world. The best this argument can do is suppose what might be. It does not logically follow that since a maximally great being can be supposed to exist, that it necessarily exists beyond the realm of our imagination.

Yes, it does. The argument displays that if a maximally great being is possible, then it is necessary. That is the entire point of it.

Maybe the maximum amount of "worlds" (you are abusing the term IMO) a being can exist in is limited to one.

Possible worlds is a modal logic term. This statement also doesn't follow. Hillary Clinton is in at least one, this one, and I can imagine her in another one.

a being (possibly mis-characterized as maximally great) could exist as nothing but imaginative activity

That doesn't follow. Follow the logic trail.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
atypican(4878) Disputed Banned
1 point

There are maximums to power, knowledge, and morality. "All" is intrinsically a maximum

All of these concepts require the assumption that reality is finite. They require "closed system" think.

since you cannot do anything more than everything or know anything more than everything or be more morally perfect.

If reality is infinite, the word "everything" is invalid.

Is your assumption that it's impossible to be morally perfect, based on the way you interpret your bible, or did you come to this conclusion some other way?

Yes, it does. The argument displays that if a maximally great being is possible, then it is necessary. That is the entire point of it.

It's garbage. the ability to suppose something that's also supposed to be maximally great does not logically necessitate that it actually is maximally great...sorry.

Possible worlds is a modal logic term.

And a shabby one at that

This statement also doesn't follow.

From what?

Hillary Clinton is in at least one, this one, and I can imagine her in another one.

And this can be soley imaginary, your ability to imagine various "worlds" does not render these "worlds" any thing but exercises in imaginative play.

That doesn't follow. Follow the logic trail.

I am introducing a possibility. Instead of saying that what I suppose doesn't follow, you should ask how it is logically supported. If you are unaware of my premise(s) you can't determine whether the statement logically follows. To say that it doesn't logically follow without being able to reference the premises it is supposed to follow from, is an empty accusation that will only be convincing to those who really aren't clear on what logic is to begin with.

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
1 point

The argument is garbage. Sure, we can suppose the existence of a being, then further suppose the being is maximally great, but just because a being can be supposed to fit this "maximally great" description doesn't mean it does. I could say that any being is "maximally great", and it would be no less logically sound.

Can a maximally great being grow? By definition NO. So if there is a maximally great being, those who CAN grow are more powerful than it is in a sense.

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

The argument is garbage. Sure, we can suppose the existence of a being, then further suppose the being is maximally great, but just because a being can be supposed to fit this "maximally great" description doesn't mean it does. I could say that any being is "maximally great", and it would be no less logically sound.

You aren't understanding the argument. God is thought of as the being in which no greater can be conceived. Regardless of whichever world God is in, He cannot be surpassed in greatness. For example, we live in this world and we think of Him as a being in which no greater can be; however, if circumstances were different, then we would still not think of Him as any less than we ought to think of Him. Moreover, if we eliminate God from the possibility, we can imagine a being that is greater than everything in one possible world but then imagine a being that is greater than it in another possible world. Hence, if we can imagine a being in which no greater can be conceived, like God, then it follows that this being must be maximally excellent in all possible worlds. No other being fits that criteria of being greater than everything always, regardless of the circumstances.

Can a maximally great being grow? By definition NO. So if there is a maximally great being, those who CAN grow are more powerful than it is in a sense.

You're not understanding the argument. Growing does not entail greatness. If it grows, then one can imagine a being that is already greater than it, while it grows, and is thus not as great.

Side: This makes a lot of sense.
atypican(4878) Disputed Banned
1 point

Perhaps you should try entertaining the possibility that you and those you excessively respect might be wrong. I think to understand the argument is to recognize it as pathetically flawed. Since you think it's a good argument, my opinion is that you poorly understand it.

Supposing that there is a maximally great being, it lacks the power to grow that less "great" beings have. These beings which are supposed to be less great than the imaginary "maximal being" are therefore greater in a sense. Growth does indeed entail greatness, for to grow is to increase in greatness is it not?

Side: TOOTH FAIRY!!!!