CreateDebate


Debate Info

23
3
True False
Debate Score:26
Arguments:24
Total Votes:26
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True (16)
 
 False (3)

Debate Creator

Stryker(849) pic



The Ontological Argument is not sound.

There is not room to state the Ontological Arguement here. This is a link that that explains Modal Logic and the Ontological Arguement. If anyone can find a better one please message me with the link and I will consider it.

http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgnphil/ontological.html

If you are of the position that the ontological argument is sound, please address the following objections.

This argument uses Modal logic which has built within it only three options, impossible, contingent(possible to exist in some worlds but not all), and necessary. This argument then defines a Maximal being as not being impossible and not contingent. Due to modal logic only having three options, if you define something as not impossible and not contingent, you are also asserting it is as necessary. If I define something as not-false, I would be asserting that it is true, as that is the only other option. This is something that has to demonstrate, it cannot be simply asserted as part of the definition of a thing.

Objection two is with modal logic claiming that referencing something causes it to actually exist in some possible world. A maximal being would only exist if referencing it causes it to exist. That needs to be demonstrated not simply asserted. This assertion causes logical contradictions if two people try to reference contradictory things. If a form of "logic" results in contradictions then it isn't logical. 

My last objection is that this argument cannot prove the existence of anything. Anything that anyone tries to demonstrate exists with this argument can be contradicted by someone else referencing a contradicting thing. Both can exist independent of the other, but the ontological argument cannot demonstrate which one exists, so it tells us nothing.

True

Side Score: 23
VS.

False

Side Score: 3
3 points

It doesnt actually prove god or even provide evidence for god. All it does is play little logic and word games to dance around evidence and create a scenario in which God COULD exist and if executed correctly can appear very persuasive when in reality by the end of the argument youre no more closer to proving god than when you started. Its a useless childish argument

Side: True
2 points

Or you could just say like, god's only possible right now because we don't have enough information to know if he's impossible or not. It's not the same kind of possibility as say, flipping a coin and getting heads. We have enough information to know that a coin can land on heads or tails, or in very rare and peculiar cases, on its side. Very different from possibility hinging on a lack of information.

I'm going to reword what I just said because I dunno if I'm making myself clear enough. The notion is usually that god exists because he's possible, right? But that's not true! Because we don't -know- if he's legitimately possible. The results of flipping a coin are all legitimate possibilities. However, we just know that he -might- be possible. We only put him under the possible category because we don't have enough information to prove or disprove him.

Side: True
Stryker(849) Disputed
1 point

The reason your objection cannot address the Ontological Argument it is as follows:

They define a Maximal being as being not-impossible. If you let them define it that way they don't have to prove anything, because it is included in the definition. It doesn't matter they they have no reason to believe that it is not-impossible because they just assume it.

I do understand where you are coming from though.

Side: True
Warlin(1213) Clarified
2 points

It's all a misunderstanding of language here. Possible means a lot of things. Admittedly, it's a lot easier to believe there's a super-powered being that exists out there that isn't maximal than one there is.

But my point is that the ontological argument is inherently flawed in that it presents possibility as reality,(As long as as that possibility is maximal) and there is more than one state of possibility. However, 'god' is only a possibility because we don't have the data to prove that he's impossible as opposed to other things that are possible that we have the data to confirm. Imagine there being an affirmative possibility and a negative possibility, and in the negative case, something only retains possibility because there isn't enough evidence to entirely disprove it, and things in the positive possibility are -absolutely- possible, because we have the data to confirm that they are possibilities.

It's not a matter of god being not-impossible, because there is a very strong chance that he -is- impossible. We just don't know. And because we don't know, the ontological argument is moot. Mostly because it assumes we -know-, that is, have the data to prove, god is a positive possibility.

Or some shit. I dunno. It's four in the morning and logic is stupid.

Side: True
1 point

I have included my argument in the debate description. I created this debate to have those objections answered by those who accept the Ontological Argument, and for those who do not to provide additional objections. They are included in the description because I want to assure they are address, and not missed due to the possibility of this post being down-voted to the bottom of the debate. I will also include them here to demonstrate intellectual honesty. (I can change the debate description at any time, After this gets a vote I cannot change it.)

If you are of the position that the ontological argument is sound, please address the following objections.

This argument uses Modal logic which has built within it only three options, impossible, contingent(possible to exist in some worlds but not all), and necessary. This argument then defines a Maximal being as not being impossible and not contingent. Due to modal logic only having three options, if you define something as not impossible and not contingent, you are also asserting it is as necessary. If I define something as not-false, I would be asserting that it is true, as that is the only other option. This is something that has to demonstrate, it cannot be simply asserted as part of the definition of a thing.

Objection two is with modal logic claiming that referencing something causes it to actually exist in some possible world. A maximal being would only exist if referencing it causes it to exist. That needs to be demonstrated not simply asserted. This assertion causes logical contradictions if two people try to reference contradictory things. If a form of "logic" results in contradictions then it isn't logical.

My last objection is that this argument cannot prove the existence of anything. Anything that anyone tries to demonstrate exists with this argument can be contradicted by someone else referencing a contradicting thing. Both can exist independent of the other, but the ontological argument cannot demonstrate which one exists, so it tells us nothing.

Side: True
Stryker(849) Clarified
1 point

I edited the debate and this comment to include the third options that is defined away by the Ontological Argument. That option was contingent, which means in some possible world but not all, but by definition the proposed Maximal being cannot be contingent as it is defined as existing in all possible worlds.

Side: True

I feel like you're a refined version of Nox. He's another debater on this site, who's against that argument, yet by refined I mean, you don't slander, you logically break down the flaws with it.

On your last point, Nox was brought to mind because he made a mock argument that replaced God in the ontological argument with the tooth fairy. The biggest supporter of the ontological argument, Lolzors, was unable to successfully disprove the tooth fairy based on his own logic for proving God, it was kind of funny.

Side: True
2 points

I am the proud owner of my turtles, in whatever possible world referencing them causes them to exist in, they have existed the longest. By definition they will have existed longer than a Maximal being in the possible world they exist in, the Maximal being can't exist in their world and still be maximal. If a maximal being can't exist in all possible worlds it isn't a maximal being.

While this is a fun argument, I find it more productive to try to demonstrate that the ontological argument is circular, which I believe I have successfully done.

Side: True

Definitely. It never occurred to me, me a person who wonders why God doesn't just stop rape, that because he can't exist in all worlds that he's not omnipotent. I like seeing your arguments. Would you consider yourself philosophical?

Side: True
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Lolzors, was unable to successfully disprove the tooth fairy based on his own logic for proving God

This is incorrect.

Side: False
Quocalimar(6470) Disputed
1 point

Can you link the page, I couldn't seem to find it? But if I remember correctly it was all in all word for the same argument you used for God, with Tooth Fairy in it's place.

Side: True
Quocalimar(6470) Clarified
1 point

Never mind I found it.

This is it

Side: True
No arguments found. Add one!