#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Is there anyway God can exist?
Do you think God can exist somehow?
Yes
Side Score: 53
|
No
Side Score: 61
|
|
Ruazenith is either impossible or necessary. Ruazenith is not logically impossible. Ruazenith is possible. Therefore, Ruazenith exists. Space Unicorns are responsible for creating within the bounds of space-time. Ruazenith is solely responsible for the creation of Earth, our solar system, and 1.3% of the rest of our universe. Other Space Unicorns did the rest. " " is responsible for creating space-time (" " is a transcendental pterodactyl). Side: No
1
point
Ruazenith is the creator of Earth, as well as some other parts of our universe. Being a timeless being, Ruazenith will never see the creation, it merely creates a single state within space-time and everything that happens before that is to lead to this state (the Final State), and all that occurs happens after is irrelevant. To help insure the Final State is reached, Ruazenith built in a mechanism that creates an avatar of it's self, something that knows the Final State and works to achieve it. On Earth Ruazenith's avatar is what we call a unicorn. While Ruazenith couldn't imbue it's avatar with the power of creation, Ruazenith knew that desired change can be caused by the birth of an "Aligner". This is done by Ruazenith's avatar, which is in the form of a unicorn, putting his head in the lap of a virgin, and causing one of her eggs to become fertilized. Aligners' purpose are to correct any problems preventing the achievement of the Final State. As long as no other errors occur in time, they will be successful. Side: Yes
1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied). 2. If a being with the predicate of maximal greatness is not applied to all possible worlds, then it is not maximally excellent in modality (Premise 1) 3. Maximal greatness means that the being that possesses such a predicate must be applied to all possible worlds (Premise 2) 4. Every possible world includes the actual world (Modal logic necessity) ......... 5. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (Assume for conditional proof) ......... 6. A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Premise 3 and 5) ......... 7. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 4 and 6) 8. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world (Conditional proof from Premises 5-7) 9. Impossibility is equivalent to not possible (By definition) 10. If something is not impossible, then it is not not possible (Premise 9) 11. Everything is either possible or impossible, though not necessarily necessary for possibility (Modal logic necessity) 12. Everything is possible unless impossible. (Premise 10 and 11) 13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1) 14. Maximal greatness is not impossible (Premise 13) 15. Maximal greatness is possible (Premise 12 and 14) 16. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 8 and 15) Side: Yes
1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied). agreed 2. If a being with the predicate of maximal greatness is not applied to all possible worlds, then it is not maximally excellent in modality (Premise 1) agreed 3. Maximal greatness means that the being that possesses such a predicate must be applied to all possible worlds (Premise 2) agreed 4. Every possible world includes the actual world (Modal logic necessity) agreed 5. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (Assume for conditional proof) Assumed 6. A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Premise 3 and 5) If you mean a maximally great being would exists in every possible world, agreed 7. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 4 and 6) If you mean a maximally great being would exist in the actual world, agreed 8. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world (Conditional proof from Premises 5-7) If you mean, if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being would exist in the actual world, agreed 9. Impossibility is equivalent to not possible (By definition) agreed 10. If something is not impossible, then it is not not possible (Premise 9) agreed, but this is is just another definition 11. Everything is either possible or impossible, though not necessarily necessary for possibility (Modal logic necessity) If you mean, Everything is either possible or impossible, agreed. And everything is not necessarily necessary for possibility, agreed 12. Everything is possible unless impossible. (Premise 10 and 11) agreed 13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1) I'll agree for this argument, but you have not demonstrated this. 14. Maximal greatness is not impossible (Premise 13) I'll agree for this argument, but you have not demonstrated this, only asked me to assume it 15. Maximal greatness is possible (Premise 12 and 14) I'll agree for this argument, but you have not demonstrated this, only asked me to assume it 16. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 8 and 15) Disagree* 1. You jump from it is possible to exist to it actually exists. 2. If a Maximal being existed, one of its attributes would be to exist, but if it doesn't exist then it would have no attributes. 3. Even if I accepted the entire argument (which I don't) all you have demonstrated is something Maximal exists, you would have to demonstrate that some being is Maximal before claiming that being exist, and simply asserting something is Maximal isn't enough, anyone could assert anything they make up as being Maximal, and then claim it exists. . Side: No
13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1) I'll agree for this argument, but you have not demonstrated this. A being that is maximally great would be maximally great in logic, which means that it is not logically impossible. 16. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 8 and 15) Disagree That doesn't logically follow. 1. You jump from it is possible to exist to it actually exists. This is what philosophers agree is true: maximally excellent in modality. 2. If a Maximal being existed, one of its attributes would be to exist, but if it doesn't exist then it would have no attributes. Thats the point: if it is not logically impossible, then it is necessary. 3. Even if I accepted the entire argument (which I don't) all you have demonstrated is something Maximal exists, you would have to demonstrate that some being is Maximal before claiming that being exist, and simply asserting something is Maximal isn't enough, anyone could assert anything they make up as being Maximal, and then claim it exists. Logic speaks for itself Side: Yes
2. If a Maximal being existed, one of its attributes would be to exist, but if it doesn't exist then it would have no attributes. Thats the point: if it is not logically impossible, then it is necessary. You have only asked me to assume a maximal being is not logically impossible, you haven't demonstrated it. You also haven't demonstrated that a maximal being is necessary. Side: No
You have only asked me to assume a maximal being is not logically impossible, you haven't demonstrated it. No, the assumption ended after premise 8. After that, these are necessarily following premises. You also haven't demonstrated that a maximal being is necessary. I have, though..... Side: Yes
No, the assumption ended after premise 8. After that, these are necessarily following premises. They are necessarily following premises only if I assume that a Maximal being is possible, If I refuse to assume that position you have demonstrated nothing. I have, though..... I can be pretty slow, would you mind explaining how you demonstrated that a maximal being is necessary? Side: No
They are necessarily following premises only if I assume that a Maximal being is possible, If I refuse to assume that position you have demonstrated nothing. It follows that a maximally great being is necessarily possible based on the definition. You also are on the side that said that God is possible. I can be pretty slow, would you mind explaining how you demonstrated that a maximal being is necessary? If a maximally great being is possible, then it follows that this being would be maximally excellent in modality, which means that it would exist in every possible world, which includes the actual world, which means that a maximally great being exists. This is what philosophers agree to be true: either God is impossible or necessary. Side: Yes
It follows that a maximally great being is necessarily possible based on the definition. You can't add the possibility of existence into something's definition, and then claim that it is possible to exist because of how you defined it." You also are on the side that said that God is possible. I am of the position that the Christian god, as presented by Christians based on the Bible, is possible. We have yet to prove the existence of the Christian god, let along demonstrate that he is a maximal being. If a maximally great being is possible, then it follows that this being would be maximally excellent in modality, which means that it would exist in every possible world, which includes the actual world, I agree, if a maximally great being is possible, than if it exists it would exist in every possible world, including ours. which means that a maximally great being exists. No, you can't assert that because a maximal being would exist in our world if it exists, it follows that a maximal being exists. Side: No
You can't add the possibility of existence into something's definition, and then claim that it is possible to exist because of how you defined it." If the definition defines something as X, then it is X. This was Kant's objection, which is a valid one; however, the problem with the objection is that begging the question is the entire point of the argument: it reverts God into a belief-properly-so-called and cannot be rationally proven or disproven just like logic and reality. By definition of the maximally great being having a maximally logical characteristic, then it follows that it must not be logically impossible. However, because existence is not a predicate and simply by referring to the being then one is assuming that it is in some reality already, then it follows that the argument is begging the question. However, the other objection to this rebuttal is that by assuming that the being already is, then one can assume that the characteristics of the being can be examined. This means that one can determine that there are no contradicting features as a result of it being maximally excellent in logic. Therefore, Kant's objection is defeated in two aspects. I am of the position that the Christian god, as presented by Christians based on the Bible, is possible. We have yet to prove the existence of the Christian god, let along demonstrate that he is a maximal being. If God is possible, then He is necessary. The Bible is filled passages saying that He is maximally great. I agree, if a maximally great being is possible, than if it exists it would exist in every possible world, including ours. / No, you can't assert that because a maximal being would exist in our world if it exists, it follows that a maximal being exists. Logically inconsistent? Side: Yes
If the definition defines something as X, then it is X. This was Kant's objection, which is a valid one; however, the problem with the objection is that begging the question is the entire point of the argument: it reverts God into a belief-properly-so-called and cannot be rationally proven or disproven just like logic and reality If you would like to equate a maximal being with logic or reality you will need to provide an argument in support of that position, not simply assert it. simply by referring to the being then one is assuming that it is in some reality already Referring to an idea doesn't cause that idea to manifest in reality. Quick! make something up! Does it exist now? (I imagined little turtles that have existed longer than anything else. <-- Currently being referred to.) If God is possible, then He is necessary. The Bible is filled passages saying that He is maximally great. You have to demonstrate that the Christian god is a maximal being, not simply refer to a book that asserts it. But this is a completely different debate, let's stick to discussing the untitled maximal being. ["I agree, if a maximally great being is possible, than if it exists it would exist in every possible world, including ours. / No, you can't assert that because a maximal being would exist in our world if it exists, [then] it follows that a maximal being [actually] exists."] Logically inconsistent? If I thought it was logically inconsistent, I wouldn't have posted it. Please explain how it is logically inconsistent. (I added two words to hopefully clarify the language. ) Side: No
If you would like to equate a maximal being with logic or reality you will need to provide an argument in support of that position, not simply assert it. I have already demonstrated it. Referring to an idea doesn't cause that idea to manifest in reality. Quick! make something up! Does it exist now? (I imagined little turtles that have existed longer than anything else. <-- Currently being referred to.) And those turtles exist in some possible world of modality, though not necessarily this possible world. Maximal greatness deduces the being in such a way that necessarily leads to it being in every possible world. You have to demonstrate that the Christian god is a maximal being, not simply refer to a book that asserts it. But this is a completely different debate, let's stick to discussing the untitled maximal being. As I have stated, maximal greatness would have maximal excellence in personal relationships. That means that it deductively follows that a maximally great being would try to have a personal relationship with it's creations and it would maximally love as well. The only god's in the history of religions that have done this are the Abrahamic gods. Once you have accepted that, then we can go on into why it is Christianity. Side: Yes
If you would like to equate a maximal being with logic or reality you will need to provide an argument in support of that position, not simply assert it. I have already demonstrated it. We will get no where if all you choose to do is make assertions. I wouldn't have claimed it was an unsupported position if you have made an argument, I would have addressed your argument, not claim you hadn't made one. It is possible that I misunderstood one of your arguments, as far as I can tell, you have stated that a maximal being would be maximum in logic, but haven't made an argument to equate a maximal being with logic. And those turtles exist in some possible world of modality, though not necessarily this possible world. Maximal greatness deduces the being in such a way that necessarily leads to it being in every possible world. In whatever possible world of modality they exist in, they have existed longer than anything else, including a maximal being, by my turtles' definition. We now have a contradiction, if my turtles exist, then a maximal being isn't maximal in length of existence, if a maximal being exists, my turtles haven't existed longer than anything else. It is possible that they both don't exist. As I have stated, maximal greatness would have maximal excellence in personal relationships. That means that it deductively follows that a maximally great being would try to have a personal relationship with it's creations and it would maximally love as well. The only god's in the history of religions that have done this are the Abrahamic gods. Once you have accepted that, then we can go on into why it is Christianity. Even if I accepted that entire paragraph, you haven't demonstrated that the Christian god is maximal in every aspect. It is possible for a being to be maximal in some accepts, but not others. If it isn't maximal in all aspects it isn't a maximal being, and you can't simply assert it is a maximal being in all aspects, you have to support that claim. Side: No
If you would like to equate a maximal being with logic or reality you will need to provide an argument in support of that position, not simply assert it. This assertion is that they are beliefs-properly-so-called, which is to say that they cannot be proven or disproven rationally. That is demonstrated in the ontological argument's response to Kant's objection to the argument: existence is not a predicate. Therefore, the ability to discuss the being reverts into a belief-properly-so-called. In whatever possible world of modality they exist in, they ave existed longer than anything else, including a maximal being, by my turtles' definition. We now have a contradiction, if my turtles exist, then a maximal being isn't maximal in length of existence, if a maximal being exists, my turtles haven't existed longer than anything else. It is possible that they both don't exist. One can determine a possible world with a turtle that can exist longer than any other being as long as you do one of two things: (1) determine that a maximally great being is impossible to exist and the turtle is able to be the longest living being or (2) determine that the turtle is actually the maximally great being that is renamed a turtle or in turtle form. Even if I accepted that entire paragraph, you haven't demonstrated that the Christian god is maximal in every aspect. It is possible for a being to be maximal in some accepts, but not others. If it isn't maximal in all aspects it isn't a maximal being, and you can't simply assert it is a maximal being in all aspects, you have to support that claim. Well, the Bible says that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc. Because a maximally great being would necessarily be maximally excellent personally, then it follows that it would have personal relationships with its creations. That means that this being must have been communicating with it's creations for effectively the entire time that they were around, which means that the religion would still have to be around today. The only religions that claim God to be maximally anything is the Abrahamic God. Side: Yes
This assertion is that they are beliefs-properly-so-called, which is to say that they cannot be proven or disproven rationally. That is demonstrated in the ontological argument's response to Kant's objection to the argument: existence is not a predicate. Therefore, the ability to discuss the being reverts into a belief-properly-so-called. You are asserting that a maximal being, like logic, cannot be proven or disprove rationally. Please construct an argument that demonstrates this to be true. Also please explain what you mean by "existence is not a predicate". One can determine a possible world with a turtle that can exist longer than any other being as long as you do one of two things: (1) determine that a maximally great being is impossible to exist and the turtle is able to be the longest living being or (2) determine that the turtle is actually the maximally great being that is renamed a turtle or in turtle form. One can determine a possible world with a being that is maximal in every capacity as long as you do one of two things: (1)determine that a turtle which has existed longer than anything else is impossible to exist and the Being is able to be the Maximal Being or (2) determine that the Maximal Being is actually a turtle that has existed longer than anything else that we renamed Maximal Being or is in Maximal Being form. Objection one goes both directions, objection two is irrelevant because other than existing longer than anything else, it is just a turtle. Turtles are not maximal in power, lust, love, hatred, or even speed, so they are not Maximal Beings. Also there are more than one, which is why I keep saying turtles, so even if they were maximal beings there would be more than one. (The group of turtles have existed longer than anything else, individually one member of the group may be older, but even if they are all maximal beings they would be the same age, the maximal age.) My turtles demonstrate that just referencing something doesn't cause it to exist in any mode. I have just referenced two different and contradictory notions, they both can't exist. Therefore referencing something doesn't cause it to come into existence in any way. If there is a maximal age, a maximal being couldn't be of that age because my turtles have existed longer by definition. Side: No
You are asserting that a maximal being, like logic, cannot be proven or disprove rationally. Please construct an argument that demonstrates this to be true. Also please explain what you mean by "existence is not a predicate". The only objection to the argument is that a maximally great being is begging the question, which is from Kant who said that existence is not a predicate. That means that existence does not add anything to the discussion because by discussing X, then it is already possible in some possible world, whether logical or illogical. Therefore, to simply say X is to already say that it is already in some possible world, whether that be illogical or logical, and can, thus, derive the notion that a maximally great being is necessary and exists. That means that one must revert back into beliefs-properly-so-called to avoid begging the question, though begging the question in this situation is not really a fallacy. Objection one goes both directions, objection two is irrelevant because other than existing longer than anything else, it is just a turtle. Turtles are not maximal in power, lust, love, hatred, or even speed, so they are not Maximal Beings. Also there are more than one, which is why I keep saying turtles, so even if they were maximal beings there would be more than one. (The group of turtles have existed longer than anything else, individually one member of the group may be older, but even if they are all maximal beings they would be the same age, the maximal age.) Of course it goes both ways. However, simply because it is a turtle does not negate the ability for it to be maximal in all other capacities; one can imagine a maximally great being that is a turtle. Moreover, there can only be one maximally excellent being for each capacity, otherwise, which one is maximal? My turtles demonstrate that just referencing something doesn't cause it to exist in any mode. I have just referenced two different and contradictory notions, they both can't exist. Therefore referencing something doesn't cause it to come into existence in any way. If there is a maximal age, a maximal being couldn't be of that age because my turtles have existed longer by definition. Your turtles can exist in any mode as long as they are not all maximally long-lasting. And as I have stated, there can only be one maximally great being, which usurps your notion of the turtles being maximal in long-lasting (there can be impossible variables such as a married-bachelor, if you go from the belief that logic is logical, which means that not everything one imagines can be in a mode or in reality). And if you want to say that this being is maximal in long-lastingness, then it follows that it must be the maximally great being, which is maximal in all capacities. Also, you can assume that a maximally great being does not exist and then be able to establish these turtles as simply the longest-living being, though not necessarily maximal if multiple, and possibly maximal if just one, in a mode. Side: Yes
A note on maximums: A maximum is the most extreme that can be reached, not the most that has been reached. An example would be that the maximum number of right answers you can get on a ten question test is ten. Any number of entities can reach a maximum, even zero. A note on my turtles: My turtles as a group have existed longer than anything else. It is possible they are of different ages, in that case only one could be of the maximal age, but even the ones that are not of a maximal age have still existed longer than anything else. It is also possible that they are all of the exact same age, if that is the case, one being maximal in age would mean they all are, but they aren't necessarily maximal in age, they have only existed longer than anything outside the group of turtles. (It is possible that something existed before them, but then stopped existing. Had it continued existing it would have existed longer which could mean that my turtles haven't existed for a maximal amount of time possible.) However, simply because it is a turtle does not negate the ability for it to be maximal in all other capacities They have been defined as turtles that have existed longer than anything else, if I wanted them to be maximal in any capacity I would have added that. (If I describe a dog but don't say "he isn't maximal in underwater breathing", are you going to just assume he is?) That means that existence does not add anything to the discussion because by discussing X, then it is already possible in some possible world If by discussing my turtles they become possible in some possible world, that prevents your maximal being from existing in that possible world because my turtles by definition will always be superior in age. If a maximal being can't exist in all possible worlds it isn't maximal and therefore a maximal being cannot exist. Side: No
A maximum is the most extreme that can be reached, not the most that has been reached. An example would be that the maximum number of right answers you can get on a ten question test is ten. Any number of entities can reach a maximum, even zero. Maximum is the greatest in which no greater can be conceived, which means that there can only be one. That is the definition of it in this argument classically in philosophy. They have been defined as turtles that have existed longer than anything else, if I wanted them to be maximal in any capacity I would have added that. (If I describe a dog but don't say "he isn't maximal in underwater breathing", are you going to just assume he is?) Thats irrelevant; my point was that simply because they are turtles does not mean that one cannot be maximally great, which means that the being which you are saying is maximally great in X, and since there is a maximally great being, then it follows that the turtle is actually the maximally great being. If by discussing my turtles they become possible in some possible world, that prevents your maximal being from existing in that possible world because my turtles by definition will always be superior in age. If a maximal being can't exist in all possible worlds it isn't maximal and therefore a maximal being cannot exist. You are misunderstanding the argument. As I have said, there are impossible variables, such as having a married-bachelor, which is under the belief that logic is logical. Therefore, that turtle could be maximal in some possible world if there is no maximally great being, as I have already said, or it could be the maximally great being (because there can only be one) if you assume that there is a maximally great being. You are equivocating the assumptions into one. Side: Yes
Maximum is the greatest in which no greater can be conceived, which means that there can only be one. There is nothing in your definition supporting the claim that there can only be on being who is maximal. There can be two beings which no greater can be conceived, they would just be equals. Thats irrelevant; my point was that simply because they are turtles does not mean that one cannot be maximally great, which means that the being which you are saying is maximally great in X, and since there is a maximally great being, then it follows that the turtle is actually the maximally great being. (1) I never defined my turtles as maximally great in any aspect at all, I said it is possible, but not necessary. (2) Something being maximal in one aspect don't justify asserting it is or could be maximal in any other aspect. You are misunderstanding the argument. Probably. >.< As I have said, there are impossible variables, such as having a married-bachelor, which is under the belief that logic is logical. True, but that only apply if you are describing one thing. If something it's self is contradictory then it cannot exist, but my turtles do not contradict themselves, only your Maximal being, who in turn contradicts my turtles. The only aspect my turtles can me maximal in is age. (if you don't make assumptions it will save me the enormous effort of listing every possible thing my turtles are not.) Because of this, my turtles cannot be a maximal being. This is the only part I think needs to be responded to, although I welcome your thoughts on anything above. Because my turtles, like a maximal being, do not contradict themselves, referring them causes them to exist in some possible world. If this is true, a maximal being cannot exist in that possible world and therefore cannot be maximal. If this is false, you can't claim referring to a maximal being brings it into existence is some possible world. Side: No
There is nothing in your definition supporting the claim that there can only be on being who is maximal. There can be two beings which no greater can be conceived, they would just be equals. If two of them are maximally great, then one is maximally sovereign. If one is maximally sovereign, then it follows that it controls all things. If one controls all things, then it follows that there can only be one maximally great being, one which controls all other things. If there are two maximally great beings, then which one controls the other? This same argument can be used for any variable: Being X is great to X point. Imagine a being that is greater than X point. You can continually go on and on, which is why philosophers simply say that the being is maximally great; however, the argument could be that a being is only maximal in variable X, such as knowledge, which can have an equal. Historically, philosophers have defined that which is maximally great (as a whole) as being that which there is no greater, which is that there is no other at its level or greater than it's level. The original argument, which has been modified to modal logic, was by St. Anselm who said something similar to the following: Imagine a being in which no greater can be conceived; if this being is in imagination, then it follows that this being can be imagined to be in reality; if it can be imagined in reality, and there can only be one being in which no greater can be conceived, then the being that is real is the being in which no greater can be conceived (modality issue); therefore, a being in which no greater can be conceived exists. The modern versions of it are more proof oriented; there is a lot of back ground information that I did not include, for which I am sorry. (1) I never defined my turtles as maximally great in any aspect at all, I said it is possible, but not necessary. (2) Something being maximal in one aspect don't justify asserting it is or could be maximal in any other aspect. I see what you are saying now. Yeah, simply because the turtles are defined as maximally excellent in quality X does not mean that they are maximally great in other aspects. That was my fault. However, there can only be one maximally great being in of itself. True, but that only apply if you are describing one thing. If something it's self is contradictory then it cannot exist, but my turtles do not contradict themselves, only your Maximal being, who in turn contradicts my turtles. The only aspect my turtles can me maximal in is age. (if you don't make assumptions it will save me the enormous effort of listing every possible thing my turtles are not.) Because of this, my turtles cannot be a maximal being. If something is contradictory to other aspects of the world, then it cannot exist. Because my turtles, like a maximal being, do not contradict themselves, referring them causes them to exist in some possible world. This is true. If this is true, a maximal being cannot exist in that possible world and therefore cannot be maximal. That does not follow from the previous premise. If this is false, you can't claim referring to a maximal being brings it into existence is some possible world. That does not follow also. Simply because the turtles are maximal in quality X does not mean that, as you have said and I now agree with you upon, another being cannot be equal in that quality, as long as it is not maximally great in of itself, which there can only be one. That means that the turtles could exist in some possible world, though not necessarily in the actual world, while the maximally great being exists in that same world, while existing in reality. Side: Yes
I now agree that only one maximal being can exist. Maximal sovereignty is by definition limited to one entity. (although this raises questions about something being maximally sovereign and maximally submissive, but l see no need to get into that now) If something is contradictory to other aspects of the world, then it cannot exist. My turtles, by definition, have existed in the possible world they exist in longer than anything that exists in that world. If you attempt to claim that a maximal being exists in every possible world, that includes that world that my turtles already exist in. Because your Maximal being is contradictory to the aspects of the world where my turtles already exist, it cannot exist there. If a maximal being can't exist in all possible worlds then it isn't maximal. Simply because the turtles are maximal in quality X does not mean that, as you have said and I now agree with you upon, another being cannot be equal in that quality This is true, but by definition my turtles have existed longer than anything in the possible world they live in. The only thing in this possible world that can be as old or older than any one of my turtles is another of my turtles. A maximal being isn't included in my group of turtles, therefore a maximal being cannot be maximal in time spent existing in my turtles' possible world, because my turtles by definition have existed longer there. Side: Yes
(although this raises questions about something being maximally sovereign and maximally submissive, but l see no need to get into that now) God, who was one being, was three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As a whole, God was completely sovereign over all things but His son was Completely submissive. My turtles, by definition, have existed in the possible world they exist in longer than anything that exists in that world. If you attempt to claim that a maximal being exists in every possible world, that includes that world that my turtles already exist in. Because your Maximal being is contradictory to the aspects of the world where my turtles already exist, it cannot exist there. If a maximal being can't exist in all possible worlds then it isn't maximal. That reverts into the same objection that I had before: it reverts into assumptions. If you assume that a maximally great being is impossible, then the turtles can reign. However, if you assume that they is one, then the turtles are contradictory to reality but can coexist in a world with a being that has the same quality. As I said before, you are equivocating assumptions and applying them to the same modality scheme. This is true, but by definition my turtles have existed longer than anything in the possible world they live in. The only thing in this possible world that can be as old or older than any one of my turtles is another of my turtles. A maximal being isn't included in my group of turtles, therefore a maximal being cannot be maximal in time spent existing in my turtles' possible world, because my turtles by definition have existed longer there. Same argument from before: you are equivocating the assumptions. You are combining contradicting features into the same modality scheme, which is logically impossible. Side: Yes
God, who was one being, was three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As a whole, God was completely sovereign over all things but His son was Completely submissive. This is a completely logical response to my objection. If you assume that a maximally great being is impossible, then the turtles can reign. However, if you assume that they is one, then the turtles are contradictory to reality What prevents me from saying "If you assume that my turtles are impossible, then the maximal being can reign. However, if you assume they exist, then the maximal being is contradictory to reality"? you are equivocating the assumptions Please explain exactly what you mean by this, and why it is wrong for me to do it. Side: Yes
What prevents me from saying "If you assume that my turtles are impossible, then the maximal being can reign. However, if you assume they exist, then the maximal being is contradictory to reality"? It is the exact same thing as what I said, it reverts into assumptions. Side: Yes
That's going into theological issues as to why believe in God preferentially, not logically because it is a belief-properly-so-called and cannot be proven or disproven rationally. So we will go into that... God is love. There is not greater love than one that lays down its life for its friends. Jesus was maximally submissive and died so that His elect may live with God in love, who works all things according the counsel of His will for the good of those who love Him. If God is maximally great and on your side, then who is there to fear? What is there to fear? Freedom comes through the Gospel of Christ, which produces faith. In this faith one can truly not worry about anything: one is in the favor of God everlasting! Praise be to God! And since, as I said, which one is believable or not believable can only be determined by faith, then I cannot rationally go from here. I would love to chat more about the Gospel of Christ and talk with you about why it is better to start with the presupposition of God but I need to go to bed. Side: Yes
An appeal to authority is an cogent inductive argument as long as the authority is justifiable. A being in which no greater can be conceived. This being can then be imagined to be in reality. By definition of it being the being in which no greater can be conceived, then it follows necessarily that this being must be applied to every possible world because if it were not in every possible world then a different great being could be applied to that world and would, thus, be the being in which no greater can be conceived. Therefore, because a being in which no greater can be conceived, then it follows deductively that this being must be real. Side: Yes
They have reasons to think what they do, I want to know what they are. I don't accept modal logic as applicable to reality. You cannot define something into existence, and my turtles make your God contingent, if he is contingent then he contradicts his definition of existing in all possible worlds. Your God is impossible. Side: No
They think that the ontological argument is a valid argument; I have presented to you what it is. Modal logic applies to reality: pretty much every "if... then" argument is from modal logic. Do you accept that if something is a dog, then it is an animal? No, your turtles become illogical and impossible if you assume for mine. Side: Yes
Saying that they accept it is an argument from authority. I would like to know their reasons for believing it. Modal logic is used from language with the use of referencing things that haven't happened yet, or don't exist yet. Contingent means possible in some worlds but impossible in others. You said that the reference to my turtles causes both the turtles and God to become contingent. Being contingent is contradictory to the definition of your God. Side: No
I have told you the reasons for believing it: it is definitionally necessary. It follows by definition. Modal logic is for all possible worlds, which includes the actual world. I never said that referencing both turtles and God makes them both contingent; I clearly said that one will become logically impossible based upon whichever one chooses to be assumed. If you assume God, then the turtles are impossible; if you assume the turtles, then God becomes impossible. I have said this multiple times now. Side: Yes
Modal logic does not have a false dichotomy. You are misunderstanding it; you can have contingent variables, such as the turtles. This is what I was referencing, I assumed that if your God makes my turtles contingent, then my turtles make your God contingent. If this is wrong I am sorry, please explain why I am mistaken. Side: Yes
And this is the problem. We can't determine what exists with modal logic because we have no way to determine which one of our things to assume. The main problem with the ontological argument is that modal logic only has three options. Impossible: You have defined God as not Impossible. 1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied). 13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1) 14. Maximal greatness is not impossible (Premise 13) Contingent: You have defined God as not contingent. 1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied). 2. If a being with the predicate of maximal greatness is not applied to all possible worlds, then it is not maximally excellent in modality (Premise 1) Necessary: This is the only other option, you have defined your God as not-impossible and not-contingent. If there are only three options, and you define something as not two of them, you are asserting it is the third because it is the only option. If I say "The story of Genesis is not true" I am asserting that it is false, that is the only other option. When you define your God as possible and non-contingent, you are asserting that he is necessary, there is no other option. Side: Yes
Please address my other argument. The main problem with the ontological argument is that modal logic only has three options. Impossible: You have defined God as not Impossible. 1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied). 13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1) 14. Maximal greatness is not impossible (Premise 13) Contingent: You have defined God as not contingent. 1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied). 2. If a being with the predicate of maximal greatness is not applied to all possible worlds, then it is not maximally excellent in modality (Premise 1) Necessary: This is the only other option, you have defined your God as not-impossible and not-contingent. If there are only three options, and you define something as not two of them, you are asserting it is the third because it is the only option. If I say "The story of Genesis is not true" I am asserting that it is false, that is the only other option. When you define your God as possible and non-contingent, you are asserting that he is necessary, there is no other option. Side: Yes
There is no problem with the argument except that it is begging the question: the argument that Kant had against it. The logic, though, follows as you have seen it. You don't have a problem with the logic; you have a problem with accepting that it proves God for the most part. Side: Yes
You don't have a problem with the logic; you have a problem with accepting that it proves God for the most part. This is false and is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. except that it is begging the question This is a huge problem and invalidates the entire argument. You are literally saying "Because I define as existing, it exists." You have to demonstrate that God is not impossible. You have to demonstrate that something can exist in all possible worlds. Until you demonstrate the premises the conclusions cannot logically follow. If you only assert the premises, then you are only asserting the conclusion, not demonstrating it. Side: Yes
This is false and is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Thats not an ad hominem attack at all. The logic speaks for itself. This is a huge problem and invalidates the entire argument. You are literally saying "Because I define as existing, it exists." That was Kant's objection. I've said that multiple times now. You have to demonstrate that God is not impossible. Actually, that falls to you. Everything is possible unless proven impossible. You have to demonstrate that something can exist in all possible worlds. A square can exist in all worlds. Until you demonstrate the premises the conclusions cannot logically follow. If you only assert the premises, then you are only asserting the conclusion, not demonstrating it. I have already said that the argument is valid; however, the issue is whether or not it is sound. Side: Yes
Thats not an ad hominem attack at all. The logic speaks for itself. You are asserting that the only reason I don't accept your assertion is because I don't want to believe in a god. Please support this claim, or it IS an ad hominen attack. I don't really care, it is a waste of time, just don't do it. That was Kant's objection. I've said that multiple times now. You're right, you have told me this many times. To better understand the argument, I just accepted Kant's objections was something to overlook until I better understood. I still don't understand how you can present an argument as logically sound when it begs the question. Below is what you told me, I don't really understand what you are trying to say. the objection is that begging the question is the entire point of the argument: it reverts God into a belief-properly-so-called and cannot be rationally proven or disproven just like logic and reality. Actually, that falls to you. Everything is possible unless proven impossible. You cannot to prove something is impossible when you define it as non-contradictory. (13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1)) It is possible from something to be both not-impossible AND not exist. I have already said that the argument is valid; however, the issue is whether or not it is sound. I have already agreed that the argument is valid, I am saying it isn't sounds. Side: Yes
You are asserting that the only reason I don't accept your assertion is because I don't want to believe in a god. Please support this claim, or it IS an ad hominen attack. I don't really care, it is a waste of time, just don't do it.&& Logic stands for itself. This is an a priori scheme, which means that it is pure reason; it is also deductive. That means that the logic stands for itself. to not accept the conclusion is fine if you don't want to say that God is possible; however, anything else is logically contradictory. You're right, you have told me this many times. To better understand the argument, I just accepted Kant's objections was something to overlook until I better understood. I still don't understand how you can present an argument as logically sound when it begs the question. Below is what you told me, I don't really understand what you are trying to say. / "the objection is that begging the question is the entire point of the argument: it reverts God into a belief-properly-so-called and cannot be rationally proven or disproven just like logic and reality." Just as I said, that is the point of it. The argument is for agnostics who say that God is possible but not probable. That is logically incomprehensible. You cannot to prove something is impossible when you define it as non-contradictory. (13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1)) It is possible from something to be both not-impossible AND not exist. That would be contingent. However, something that is maximally great is either impossible or necessary. I have already agreed that the argument is valid, I am saying it isn't sounds. Then you must say that God is impossible to retain the notion that He does not exist. Side: Yes
Logic stands for itself. I have already stated I don't believe modal logic is sound when applied to reality, I have asked for you to tell me why it is, and you simply state that it is because philosophers say so. That is an appeal to authority. Tell me why it is logical, don't just assert it is. Just as I said, that is the point of it. The argument is for agnostics who say that God is possible but not probable. That is logically incomprehensible. Why is it logically incomprehensible for someone to state God is possible, but not probable? Then you must say that God is impossible to retain the notion that He does not exist. I have just said that I believe the ontological argument isn't sound, if it isn't sound, no logical conclusion can be gotten from it. It seems like you are saying that you don't have to demonstrate that the argument is sound, is that your position? If no please correct me. Side: No
I have already stated I don't believe modal logic is sound when applied to reality, I have asked for you to tell me why it is, and you simply state that it is because philosophers say so. That is an appeal to authority. Tell me why it is logical, don't just assert it is. Modal logic when applied anywhere stands. You are asking why logic is logical right now. Why is it logically incomprehensible for someone to state God is possible, but not probable? Because God is either impossible or necessary. Therefore, to say that He is possible is to say that He is existent. I have just said that I believe the ontological argument isn't sound, if it isn't sound, no logical conclusion can be gotten from it. It seems like you are saying that you don't have to demonstrate that the argument is sound, is that your position? If no please correct me. You said that it is valid, which means that if the premises are true, then so too is the conclusion. Sound means that the argument is true. Therefore, it follows that you don't believe that premises to be true. The ontological argument part is based in definition: "If God is possible, then He is real". The only argument against it, as most philosophers agree must be argued about, is that God is impossible, which means that modus ponens cannot be taken up the if.. then statement that is derived necessarily from modal logic. Hence, your role is to determine whether God is impossible or necessary. Side: Yes
I believe you are saying the following: If you don't believe the assumptions of the ontological argument, you are begging the question, which is logically absurd because the ontological argument says so, but if you don't believe the assumptions of the ontological argument then you are begging the question, which is logically absurd...... Is this correct? Side: No
I'm saying that the logical formula of "If God is possible, then God exists" is true based in modal logic and conditional proofs. From that, one must derive whether or not God is possible or not; however, whatever one assumes, then one is reverting back into beliefs-properly-so-called, which can only be begging the question, logically, because it can neither be proven or disproven rationally, as Kant said. That is the point of it begging the question. Therefore, one must decide: is God impossible or necessary? Side: Yes
Yes, it is true only if you accept the ontological argument. However, the ontological argument only establishes the "If God is possible, then God exists." The question as to whether God is possible or not is not apart from the ontological argument, which is what philosophers debate upon. Side: Yes
Me: The ontological argument isn't sound because it begs the question. You: "the objection is that begging the question is the entire point of the argument You: The argument is for agnostics who say that God is possible but not probable. That is logically incomprehensible. Me: Why is that logically incomprehensible? You: Because God is either impossible or necessary. Me: isn't this only true if you accept the ontological argument. You: Yes, it is true only if you accept the ontological argument. Have I misrepresented your position? Side: Yes
The ontological argument only establishes the "If... then". It does not establish whether or not God is possible or not. That was the point of Kant's objection: by already assuming that God is possible, then God is real. He was objecting to it by saying that God does not have to be possible necessarily. That is where others must chime in: to decide whether or not God is possible or not. Side: Yes
The following is is circular. It could very well be that I made a mistake, please address each line stating whether I presented your argument accurately or not. If there are any logical flaws please point them out. Me: The ontological argument isn't sound because it begs the question. You: "the objection is that begging the question is the entire point of the argument You: The argument is for agnostics who say that God is possible but not probable. That is logically incomprehensible. Me: Why is that logically incomprehensible? You: Because God is either impossible or necessary. Me: isn't this only true if you accept the ontological argument. You: Yes, it is true only if you accept the ontological argument. Side: No
As I have said multiple times: the ontological argument only establishes the "if.. then". That is not begging the question, nor circular reasoning, which are different logical issues. The overall arching argument, which is to say that God is real, which includes the argument that God is not impossible, is begging the question because it assumes God is real. I have said this multiple times now. God is impossible or necessary because the ontological argument stands by itself. The overall arching argument is begging the question, which assumes that God is possible. You decide: is God impossible or necessary? This is the final argument I'm going to respond with; I have explained it multiple times now. There is no issue except that assuming God is possible or that God is impossible is begging the question. Side: Yes
As I have said multiple times: the ontological argument only establishes the "if.. then". The ontological argument doesn't establish anything because it isn't sounds. You assertion that begging the question is required because not assuming the assumed premises is illogical. You then state that it illogical to not accept the assumed premises of the ontological argument because the ontological argument said it isn't logical. That is circular reasoning and is a logical fallacy. Everytime you use this argument I will respond and let the person you are debating know the proof that demonstrates the ontological argument is circular. Because the proof is logical, they will agree with me and they will present the proof, which you will assert is wrong, but you will be unable to demonstrate it. If I am actually wrong, one of the people I share with will demonstrate it to me. Side: No
The ontological argument doesn't establish anything because it isn't sounds. You assertion that begging the question is required because not assuming the assumed premises is illogical. You then state that it illogical to not accept the assumed premises of the ontological argument because the ontological argument said it isn't logical. The ontological doesn't state that the assumed premises are logical or illogical. As I have said, the base ontological argument only establishes the "if.. then" premise, which is a conditional proof and modal logic, which is not illogical. The thing that is being assumed is whether or not God is possible, which is a different premise from the ontological argument. That is not circular and not illogical; as I have said, if it is illogical, then the majority of philosophers are illogical because they all agree that the ontological argument as a whole, which includes the premise of God being possible, is valid; however, what they disagree on is whether it is sound or not as a whole, which is to say that they disagree on whether God is possible. Now, as I have established multiple times, it is logically incomprehensible to say that God is possible but not probable, which means you must determine if God is impossible or necessary, which philosophers agree are the only two logical stances. You're not understanding the argument. Side: Yes
I have established multiple times, it is logically incomprehensible to say that God is possible but not probable, which means you must determine if god is impossible or necessary. --------------------------------------- You: Therefore, one must decide: is God impossible or necessary? Me: I'm really not trying to go in circles, but isn't this only true if you accept the ontological argument. You: Yes, it is true only if you accept the ontological argument. --------------------------------------- I do not accept the ontological argument because it isn't sound. It follows that I do not accept that God is either impossible or necessary. It follows that I can then not accept the assumptions of the ontological argument. If you don't accept the assumptions of the ontological argument, it isn't sound. No matter what direction you look at it, this is circular. I'm only presenting you with logic, denying it is illogical. If you are right, I gain eternal life. If I am right, the argument that supports your entire world view and promise of eternal life isn't sound. You have much more reason to be intelligently dishonest, and whether on purpose or not, I believe you are. Side: No
You: Therefore, one must decide: is God impossible or necessary? Me: I'm really not trying to go in circles, but isn't this only true if you accept the ontological argument. You: Yes, it is true only if you accept the ontological argument. It is only true if you accept the ontological argument because the base ontological argument is establishing the "if.. then", which must be established to determine that possibility leads to existence. However, what you are doing is applying the base ontological argument to the whole ontological argument, which includes the premise of saying that God is possible. do not equivocate. I do not accept the ontological argument because it isn't sound. The base ontological argument, which is the "if.. then" is logically necessary. If you want to disagree with logic, then that is fine. Do not equivocate this base ontological argument to the whole ontological argument, which includes that God is possible. If you want to say that the whole is unsound, then that is fine; however, you can only do so logically by saying that God is impossible. It follows that I do not accept that God is either impossible or necessary. You do not accept logic, then, if you are referring to the base ontological argument. It follows that I can then not accept the assumptions of the ontological argument. The assumptions of the ontological argument as a whole are different from the base ones. If you don't accept the assumptions of the ontological argument, it isn't sound. That is not true; something is sound regardless of what someone thinks about it. No matter what direction you look at it, this is circular. I'm only presenting you with logic, denying it is illogical. This is not circular, nor illogical. You are misunderstanding the argument and presenting illogical stances. If you are right, I gain eternal life. That doesn't follow. If I am right, the argument that supports your entire world view and promise of eternal life isn't sound. That doesn't follow either. You have much more reason to be intelligently dishonest, and whether on purpose or not, I believe you are. I'm not being intellectual dishonest. If you have a problem with intellectual discussion, then take it up with philosophers. You are disagreeing with logic. Are you trolling? Side: Yes
This is the very first time you have use the phrase "base ontological argument". 5. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (Assume for conditional proof) ......... 6. A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Premise 3 and 5) ......... 7. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 4 and 6) 8. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world (Conditional proof from Premises 5-7) I reject premise five as that would be an unsupported assumption. Tell me why it isn't unsupported without referencing the "base ontological argument" or the "ontological argument. Side: Yes
This is the very first time you have use the phrase "base ontological argument". I have explained multiple times that the ontological argument is the "if..them", which is not establishing whether or not God is possible or not. The whole argument, though, has been about the ontological argument. I reject premise five as that would be an unsupported assumption. Tell me why it isn't unsupported without referencing the "base ontological argument" or the "ontological argument. It is a conditional proof. It doesn't need to have any support to it because that is the point of the conditional proof: you establish that if God is possible, then it follows that God is necessary. This is the base ontological argument. The overall arching ontological argument includes the notion of God being possible. Side: Yes
The validity of a conditional proof does not require that the conditional proof assumption is actually true, only that if it were true it would lead to the consequent. 5. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (Assume for conditional proof) 6. A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Premise 3 and 5) -3. Maximal greatness means that the being that possesses such a predicate must be applied to all possible worlds (Premise 2) --2. If a being with the predicate of maximal greatness is not applied to all possible worlds, then it is not maximally excellent in modality (Premise 1) ---1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied). 7. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 4 and 6) -4. Every possible world includes the actual world (Modal logic necessity) 8. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world (Conditional proof from Premises 5-7) Premise five is an assumption. Premise six is based on the assumption of premise one and on the assumption of premise five. Premise seven is based on the assumption of premise six, which is based on the assumptions of premises one and five. You have demonstrated that if a maximal being is possible, it would exist, that is all your conditional proof demonstrates. You cannot claim that a maximal being actually exists until you have demonstrated premises one and five to be true. Side: Yes
You have demonstrated that if a maximal being is possible, it would exist, that is all your conditional proof demonstrates. You cannot claim that a maximal being actually exists until you have demonstrated premises one and five to be true. Thats the entire point I have been trying to say: if God is possible, then God is necessary, but whether God is possible or not is the question, which reverts into a belief-properly-so-called. God, thus, is either impossible or necessary. Side: Yes
The base ontological argument assumes that if God, before determining whether He be logical or illogical, is possible, then God is real. That is the base ontological argument. Whether God is illogical, and thus impossible, is outside of the base ontological argument. Side: Yes
The base ontological argument assumes that if God, before determining whether He be logical or illogical, is possible, then God is real. This isn't true, it only determines that if God is possible, then it follows that God would exist. It doesn't demonstrate that he actually exists. I think you are misunderstanding conditional proofs. You still have to demonstrate he is possible because you defined him as not-impossible, which is to define him as possible. Side: Yes
The base ontological argument assumes that if God, before determining whether He be logical or illogical, is possible, then God is real. / This isn't true, it only determines that if God is possible, then it follows that God would exist. It doesn't demonstrate that he actually exists. I think you are misunderstanding conditional proofs. Thats what I said.................. I clearly stated multiple times that whether God is possible or not is reverted into beliefs-properly-so-called. Side: Yes
I clearly stated multiple times that whether God is possible or not is reverted into beliefs-properly-so-called. You can only do this if you demonstrate that the base ontological argument is sound. If you cannot it is irrelevant what the base ontological argument concludes, because it isn't sound. You are defining that God is possible, then saying that if he is possible he would exist. This is begging the question, again. Do you have another reason why I should accept this begging of the question? This is a summation of where we are at: Me: I do not accept the premises in the ontological argument. It is begging the question. You: It is supposed to beg the question to demonstrate is is illogical to NOT assume the assumptions. Me: Why is it illogical to NOT assume the assumptions of the ontological argument. You: Because the base ontological argument says that if God is possible then God exists. Me: I do not accept the premises in the base ontological argument. It is begging the question, again, you are defining it as possible. Side: Yes
You can only do this if you demonstrate that the base ontological argument is sound. If you cannot it is irrelevant what the base ontological argument concludes, because it isn't sound. I have demonstrated to you that it is sound. You even agreed; philosophers even agree. The question is whether the whole ontological argument is sound: whether God is actually possible or not. You are defining that God is possible, then saying that if he is possible he would exist. This is begging the question, again. Do you have another reason why I should accept this begging of the question? No, I'm assuming that God is possible and then establishing that He exists. That is a conditional proof. Me: I do not accept the premises in the base ontological argument. It is begging the question, again, you are defining it as possible. Why do you not accept the premises in the base ontological argument? They follow deductively. That, though, is not begging the question to assume, in a conditional proof, that God is possible, and it is not establishing that God is in reality actually possible. You are still equivocating the two ontological argument issues. Side: Yes
I have demonstrated to you that [BOA] is sound. You even agreed; philosophers even agree. I disagree, I said it is valid, not sound. I don't care what anyone outside this discussion thinks. The BOA can be used for conditional proof, but until you demonstrate the assumptions, it isn't sound. X is a possible -> X exists If X is possible this argument is both Valid and sound. If X is not possible this argument is only Valid. Side: Yes
I disagree, I said it is valid, not sound. I don't care what anyone outside this discussion thinks. The BOA can be used for conditional proof, but until you demonstrate the assumptions, it isn't sound. The base ontological argument is not debated over and is sound because it is a conditional proof. You are still equivocating the two. The whole ontological argument, which has the base ontological argument within it is what is debated over whether it is sound or not: whether God is possible or not. Therefore, as i have said multiple times now, you must determine for yourself whether God is impossible or necessary. Side: Yes
The base ontological argument is not debated over and is sound because it is a conditional proof. We are debating about it. A conditional proof is only sound if all premises are true, as I have already said. An argument is sound if and only if The argument is valid. All of its premises are true. -Wikipedia, feel free to find me another. you must determine for yourself whether God is impossible or necessary. What happens if I determine he is impossible? Side: Yes
We are debating about it. A conditional proof is only sound if all premises are true, as I have already said. Wrong. A conditional proof is always sound if it is valid. The entire point of a conditional proof is to establish that "if" something, "then" something else; you are still equivocating the base with the whole. All the premises are true because they are all based in assumption, which is true that they have been assumed. Therefore, if it is a valid conditional proof, then it is sound. What happens if I determine he is impossible? Then so be it. I can debate over that; however, that is not the point of the classic ontological argument. Side: Yes
Please provide a source for this claim. Logic. A conditional proof is simply an assumption that follows the entire way through and then summed up at the end (Premise 8) It is true that if God is possible, then God exists in some possible world. It is true that if God exists in some possible world, then God exists in every possible world because He would be maximally excellent in modality. It is true that if god exists in every possible world, then He exists in the actual world. It is true that if God is possible, then He exists in the actual world. These are all true premises because they are all based in an assumption, which is the point of the ontological argument. It is true that if, which means that God is assumed, then God exists. I was just curious, is the answer the same if I pick necessary? Yes. Side: Yes
These are all true premises because they are all based in an assumption, which is the point of the ontological argument. It is true that if, which means that God is assumed, then God exists. They are only true if the assumption is true. How to demonstrate validity. It is true that if God is possible, then God exists in some possible world. It is true that if God exists in some possible world, then God exists in every possible world because He would be maximally excellent in modality. It is true that if God exists in every possible world, then He exists in the actual world. It is true that if God is possible, then He exists in the actual world. I agree that this is valid. To demonstrate soundness, you must demonstrate that each premise is true with the assumptions in place. God is possible, it follows God exists in some possible world. God exists in some possible world, then God exists in every possible world because He is maximally excellent in modality. God exists in every possible world, it follows that he exists in the actual world. God is possible, He exists in the actual world. You have to demonstrate that God is actually possible. I would still like a source stating that a conditional argument is sound as long as it is valid. Side: Yes
Okay, lets break it down differently to show you what you are doing wrong. Whole argument: If it is a dog, then it is an animal. <--- This is the base argument summed up It is a dog. Therefore, it is an animal. Base argument: Assume dog for conditional proof. If it is a dog, then it is a mammal If it is a mammal, then it is an animal Therefore, If it is a dog, then it is an animal. <-- Base argument summed up You are trying to say that the base argument is unsound because you have to assume for it, which means that the argument is not necessarily true, which means that it is circular. That is illogical. The base argument is not disputed; the whole argument is what is disputed. Side: Yes
The base argument is not disputed; I am disputing is. Until you can source the assertion that a conditional arguments validity demonstrates soundness, you are only asserting it. Your entire claim is based on this. You are trying to say that the base argument is unsound because you have to assume for it, which means that the argument is not necessarily true, which means that it is circular. That is illogical. This is an excellent summation of my position. Side: Yes
I am disputing is. Until you can source the assertion that a conditional arguments validity demonstrates soundness, you are only asserting it. Your entire claim is based on this. The only way the base argument can be unsound is if the argument is invalid. The entire thing is an assumption, which is true that "if" X is true, then so too is the consequent. Put it this way: if the base argument relating to dogs is unsound, then it cannot be used for modus ponens. If a conditional proof is valid, then it is sound because it is not saying that the premises within it are actually true but that they are assumed to be true to derive the conclusion that would logically follow. This is just logic 101. This is an excellent summation of my position. I understand your position perfectly and it is found to be illogical. Side: Yes
You are asking me to just believe you. I don't. Please provide a source. Validity and soundness are not the same thing. For both positions, impossible or necessary, you are required to demonstrate it. I cannot demonstrate either, I am withholding belief until I can demonstrate one, or until one is demonstrated to me. Side: Yes
"It is because for an argument to count as a proof in philosophy -- I leave aside mathematics which may not be so exacting -- certain exceedingly demanding conditions must be met. First, a proof must be deductive: no inductive argument proves its conclusion. Second, a proof must be valid: it must be a deductive argument such that its corresponding conditional is a narrowly-logical truth, where an argument's corresponding conditional is a conditional proposition the protasis of which is the conjunction of the argument's premises, and the apodosis of which is the argument's conclusion. "Third, although a valid argument needn't have true premises, a proof must have all true premises. In other words, a proof must be a sound argument. Fourth, a proof cannot commit any infomal fallacy such as petitio principii. An argument from p to p is deductive, valid, and sound. But it is obviously no proof of anything." Side: No
"Third, although a valid argument needn't have true premises, a proof must have all true premises. In other words, a proof must be a sound argument." If it doesn't serve as proof it isn't worth reviewing. The OBA doesn't have all true premises. It is valid, but even according to your source it isn't sound. Fourth, a proof cannot commit any infomal fallacy such as petitio principii. So if it begs the question it isn't sound. Side: Yes
I'm finished arguing with you. You aren't listening to what I have been saying. The dog was assumed in the base conditional proof, just like God was assumed to be possible in the base ontological argument; from those assumptions, then the other premises follow deductively. This is not begging the question and is the logical form. You are still equivocating. You just have a problem with conditional proofs. Please take a logic class. Side: Yes
You don't understand who conditional proofs work. You refuse to accept logic. I will do my best to make sure no one believes your intellectually dishonest word games. At the end of the day, even if I accept everything you said, you still can't demonstrate a Maximal Being exists until you demonstrate that everything that could possibly contradict it to be impossible. The ontological argument is circular, and even if it wasn't it cannot demonstrate anything. It serves not purpose and isn't worth mentioning when discussion anything's existence. I learned a lot though, thanks! :D Side: Yes
You haven't used evidence. Logic doesn't count as evidence, logic counts as logic. I could make the same argument for anything as Stryker did down below. It is a horrible fallacy to assume god cannot exist under any circumstance, however statistical probability puts his chances of existence very very low. Side: No
1
point
Its not so much that you can calculate probability like if you had 3 colored marbles in a bag kind of thing. Its like a non-mathematical probability that you come to by looking at the evidence for and against God's existence. So if we look at all the evidence for God which is really really small and almost nonexistent, lets say thats about 5% size. Then look at the evidence against God or in favor of other things as well as the rebuttals of theistic arguments and that is a huge amount of evidence. We can say that this is about 95% size. So its not a real probability but kinda like applying values to evidence. Side: No
1
point
I'm going to have to dispute the mathematical processes that yield a statistical probability (high, low, OR nil) regarding the existence/nonexistence of a God or Gods. I don't believe there is sufficient information available, even just regarding the possible expected 'outcomes,' for any kind of legitimate probability calculation. Side: Yes
1
point
Its not so much that its mathematical. Its that we can mentally apply values to the amounts of evidence for and against god. Like if you had a bucket of water and a small glass of water. You can say "well the bucket is maybe a gallon and a half and the glass is maybe one cup of water". It isnt exact or mathematical but just by looking at it you can tell that one has more water than the other therfore the bucket probably has more volume. You can do the same for God in a way except the water is the amount of evidence for God. So lets say we have a bucket filled with evidence against god's existence and a small glass containing evidence for his existence. Collectively all of the evidence equals a whole 100%. But clearly the bucket contains more evidence, so we could say its about 95% and the glass is about 5%. So we can say that theres 95% probability that God doesnt exist or more simply put, that god probably doesnt exist. This isnt mathematical at all and therfore isnt really a valid calculation, but its an approximation based on observing evidence. Side: No
1
point
Fair enough. Here is the point in which we disagree: "Collectively all of the evidence equals a whole 100%" How much certainty do you hold that we have a total pool of evidence that amounts to 100%, or anywhere close? In your example, lets say we have a bucket filled with evidence against god's existence, and we have a small glass containing evidence for his existence. What about the huge swimming pool next to our bucket and glass that contains evidence that has yet to be uncovered? It seems the height of hubris to consider ones current knowledge to be the sum total of all possible knowledge. That is my point. Side: Yes
1
point
I think you misunderstand. Its not that collectively we have 100% evidence we ever will have right now. Thats obviously not true we have alot to still investigate (or so it seems). The 100% represents collectively what we do have right now. So if i have a bucket of water and the glass, then my 100% is based on the collective whole of the water in those two containers. The water in, say, the indian ocean doesnt factor in. Your point would be valid if i was claiming that we have complete knowledge sure but that isnt what i meant Side: No
1
point
This is true, but the wording of your argument suggested complete evidence, even if it wasn't your intent to make that suggestion. Perception is critical in all communication, and particular when representing ones side in debate. Back to the statistics topic- for statistics to be valid, they need to represent a statistically significant portion of the population- in this case, lets call the various facts (unknown and known) the population. Just how confident are you that the total amount of known facts we have now are statistically significant? Doesn't that require at least a fundamental understanding of how large the whole is? If a God does, in fact, exist, and has a nature anywhere close to what is believed by any religion, I would expect a need for technology and research methods to advance much further to even see the positive evidence. The scientific problem with God is not the proportion of the evidence for vs the evidence against. Time and time again, we've seen scientifically accepted knowledge be overturned when an advancement in our technology yielded a wealth of new evidence and knowledge. The scientific problem with God is the lack of falsifiability. Side: Yes
1
point
Just how confident are you that the total amount of known facts we have now are statistically significant? Doesn't that require at least a fundamental understanding of how large the whole is? Im not sure i understand. The "whole" is all that we know right now. Ive been researching for years and have seen every single theist argument demolished and have also seen all of the leading theories for the beginning of the universe as well as evolution. These all have alot of evidence going for them and its almost certain that many years from now they will still stand. Perhaps slightly different due to new evidence, but still the same fundamentally. I and many other atheists have a good understanding of what the "whole" is and from the looks of things most of the evidence is pointing towards god not existing as opposed to the contrary. If a God does, in fact, exist, and has a nature anywhere close to what is believed by any religion, I would expect a need for technology and research methods to advance much further to even see the positive evidence. Well his nature, so were told, is that he is outside of time and space (among other things). Because of this, we will NEVER be able to positively test for his existence. That is why religious claims and God is not part of any scientific investigation anymore and why creationism was dropped from scientific study in 1850. Theists have put god in a place where science will never be able to reach, thus making him all the more ridiculous. And since he is outside of science's reach all we can do is argue about the legitimacy of religious claims among other things and decide whether God still seems reasonable. Well, an atheistic argument has never been defeated with a theistic one however the opposite has happened every single time. This, coupled with alternative, natural explainations for the universe and life, make God a very small possiblity. The scientific problem with God is not the proportion of the evidence for vs the evidence against. Time and time again, we've seen scientifically accepted knowledge be overturned when an advancement in our technology yielded a wealth of new evidence and knowledge. Yes, however with God it doesnt matter how great our technology becomes. We can never reach outside of time and space. He is unfalsifiable exactly. Side: No
1
point
Im not sure i understand. The 'whole' is all that we know right now. Ive been researching for years and have seen every single theist argument demolished and have also seen all of the leading theories for the beginning of the universe as well as evolution. These all have alot of evidence going for them and its almost certain that many years from now they will still stand. Perhaps slightly different due to new evidence, but still the same fundamentally. I and many other atheists have a good understanding of what the "whole" is and from the looks of things most of the evidence is pointing towards god not existing as opposed to the contrary. I'm going to have to fundamentally dispute that you, or anyone else, atheist or otherwise, has anywhere close to a good understanding of what the whole is. Well his nature, so were told, is that he is outside of time and space (among other things). Because of this, we will NEVER be able to positively test for his existence. That is why religious claims and God is not part of any scientific investigation anymore and why creationism was dropped from scientific study in 1850. Theists have put god in a place where science will never be able to reach, thus making him all the more ridiculous. And since he is outside of science's reach all we can do is argue about the legitimacy of religious claims among other things and decide whether God still seems reasonable. Well, an atheistic argument has never been defeated with a theistic one however the opposite has happened every single time. This, coupled with alternative, natural explainations for the universe and life, make God a very small possiblity. I'm also going to have to dispute the idea that we will never be able to positively test for his existence. Even now, there is significant research going on regarding the nature of time and space, and manipulating both of these. I fully expect our knowledge to continue to grow, and even accelerate, and I firmly believe that one day we will be able to answer the question one way or the other. Yes, however with God it doesnt matter how great our technology becomes. We can never reach outside of time and space. He is unfalsifiable exactly. See my prior response. We've gotten way off track here though. This debate is not 'Does God exist' vs 'Does God not exist.' The debate is 'Is there anyway God can exist?' The answer to that is simply yes, and that answer does not imply that you personally believe that God exists or not, or whether you believe it is likely. I'm not a theist myself, but I consider it the height of hubris to state that God is impossible. It's an inflammatory statement with zero basis in reality, and really is just a way to troll theists. 'God is impossible' is not a scientific perspective, its a belief. This right here is the difference between 'soft' atheism [NOT(Believe(God))] and 'hard' atheism [Believe(NOT(God))]. Side: Yes
1
point
Logic provides that if God is possible, then He is necessary. No it provides that he is possible. "Logic provides that if Space Unicorns are possible, then they are necessary." See how crazy that sounds, yes space unicorns are possible, but how in any way does a statement of possibility become a necessity? And only evidence can prove something to be true, of which there is none for god! Side: No
There can only be one maximally great being. Prove it And if you want to say that one of these unicorns is maximally great, then what you are doing is simply naming God a unicorn. Exactly, I'm showing you that your argument can be used for anything, even the flying spaghetti monster, which has more evidence than any god. Side: No
You want me to prove to you that there can only be one maximally great being? Are you serious? You must be trolling.... If there are two maximally great beings, then which one maximally great? Exactly, I'm showing you that your argument can be used for anything, even the flying spaghetti monster, which has more evidence than any god. Of course it can be used to support the flying spaghetti monster, if that is what you want to call God. However, you must keep in mind that a maximally great being would be maximally personal, which means that it would reach out to it's creations. What religions have a maximally great being that is personal? The only ones are the Abrahamic religions, which means it must be one of them. Side: Yes
If there are two maximally great beings, then which one maximally great? Both, all, none, that is why there is no evidence for maximally great beings. However, you must keep in mind that a maximally great being would be maximally personal, which means that it would reach out to it's creations. of such reaches there is no evidence, I point you to any video about logical fallacies by AronRa. The only ones are the Abrahamic religions, which means it must be one of them. Hinduism as well, apparently all of their gods are aspects of a single god Shakti. However there is no evidence for any of these so called "gods" either Abrahamic or otherwise. Side: No
1
point
1
point
God exists. I believe in God from the Christian religion way. Here is the scientific reason to believe he exists even though I dont believe in the big bang. The universe had a begining undisputedly. There for it had a creator. Now you might ask "then what created God?" well, he allways was and allways will be, therefor he doesnt have a begining. Side: Yes
The universe had a begining undisputedly. There is no proof that the universe had a beginning. There for it had a creator Logical fallacy. Just because something exists doesn't mean a supernatural space wizard willed it into existence. Now you might ask "then what created God?" well, he allways was and allways will be, therefor he doesnt have a begining. The same can be said for the universe, god is completely unnecessary. Side: No
1
point
Well, it is a commonly accepted belief wether they are religious or atheist that the universe had a begining. For example, Morgan Freeman often talks about the big bang while My pastor talkes about the creation of the world by God. Before I start diging up proof, you should prove the universe never began and allways was. Secondly, God by definition is the best explanation for the birth of the universe. What else could of created it? God is as of now the best argument for the birth of the universe. Now if you fail to provide good evidents the universe always was, then argue 'what else could have created the universe'. Side: Yes
1
point
Well, it is a commonly accepted belief wether they are religious or atheist that the universe had a begining. No it isnt. Its still being debated and investigated. Its no more likely that it had a beginning than that it did not. For example, Morgan Freeman often talks about the big bang while My pastor talkes about the creation of the world by God. Neither of these two people are qualified by and stretch of the imagination to provide such information. Find quotes from an actualy astro-physicist from a peer reviewed source and then talk to me. Before I start diging up proof, you should prove the universe never began and allways was. I cant. Nobody can. Its still being investigated. And even if i could, i dont have to. The burden of proof lies on you to prove your claim that the universe had a beginning and even more so to prove that your God was that initial cause. You cant just say "Well YOU cant prove it WASNT god so it MUST be god!" Thats foolish. A judge doesnt say "Well the defense cant prove it WASNT the defendant, so he's guilty". Sorry, you need to "dig up proof" first. Secondly, God by definition is the best explanation for the birth of the universe. HAH! No he isnt. He's about the worst explaination there is. Saying God did it is a giant God of the Gaps fallacy. "I dont know the REAL reason, therfore God did it". You people just stick god into any situation that isnt clear and it suddenly appears to be the best explaination. Well it isnt. Creationism has more holes in it that swiss cheese and has been disproven a hundred times over. If you want me to go into detail ill be happy to. What else could of created it? Well you still havent proven that it needed a creator. It could have always existed. OR if it did need a cause, then that cause may have been natural in and of itself. And then of course theres the multiverse theory. Any and all of which are far more likely than your god. However ultimately it appears that the Big Bang is the most supported and leading theory today. God is as of now the best argument for the birth of the universe As far as christians are concerned sure. However ACTUAL scientists have shown otherwise. Now if you fail to provide good evidents the universe always was, then argue 'what else could have created the universe'. Im not claiming that the universe always was. i said it MAY HAVE always been. Ultimately what you dont understand is im not making any claims at all. Therfore i have no burden of proof at all. The only thing i can say is i dont know. i dont know how the universe came to be. Science has some good ideas. But ultimately i dont know. and they dont know. and YOU dont know. You think you know. you say you know. but you dont know. because its unknowable. Now if you're actually going to say that you know for certain that A) the universe had a beginning undoubtedly B) God is real and C) God created the universe: then those are three extraordinary claims that all need extraordinary evidence that, lets face it, you dont have. Side: No
1
point
Please look up this link, http://www.hawking.org.uk/ Now a great mind like Hakhing's could argue far more then I could about time, space and the begining of the universe. Your arguement that God didn't start it, the big bang did it. I was argueing that it he could of created the big bang as well as the religious creation but, that's another argument. Hawking is an atheist so he isn't the best person to help prove God but, he helps with the univese having a begining part of the argument. Okay hopefully that part's covered. Okay, If your not making claims let's for now assume that the universe had a begining. The big bang wasn't allways, so what created it? I argue God. What do you argue could have created the big band or creation. Side: Yes
1
point
Now a great mind like Hakhing's could argue far more then I could about time, space and the begining of the universe. Your arguement that God didn't start it, the big bang did it. No actually i never made an argument. I never said the big bang was the start of the universe. i said i dont know but the big bang is the leading theory at this point in time and the god hypothesis isnt even a legitimate consideration. I was argueing that it he could of created the big bang as well as the religious creation but, that's another argument. You never said that at all. If youre going to make that argument then make it The big bang wasn't allways, so what created it? I argue God. Then argue god. Just saying " I vote God" is useless. Wheres your arguments? Your evidence? Reasons? Logic?
Once again the only honest answer i have is I DONT KNOW. Also i wanna add that hawkings wasnt arguing that EVERYTHING needed a beginning, just that the universe in the state it is now needed a beginning. As in the entire fabric of space wasnt always like it is now. This being said he was not arguing that the big bang needed a beginning. The big bang, in his opinion, was the beginning to the universe. The big bang started with a point of singularity, this point was not the universe, but what the universe would be made out of. So there can still be argued that the big bang didnt need a cause, however the universe being in the state it is right now did need to be caused. see what i mean? What do you argue could have created the big band or creation. To summarize: I dont know but the big bang is the most supported theory (which rules out biblical creation) and we dont know if the big bang needed a cause or not. However if we assume for the sake of argument that it did need a cause, my guess would be that the cause would be a natural process or cause of some kind because that would be consistent with everything we have observed about the nature of the universe, and not a space wizard willing it to poof into being Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I think I gave enough. You didnt give any at all.... When it comes to God, there is to much evidents to disprove him No actually. Its not that we cant disprove him because there's too much evidence FOR him. Its because his nature is such that science, the only thing that can really prove something, cannot test for him. There is definately not too much evidence for him, theres barely any at all. It's really a matter of faith or philosiphy It's faith in the purest form. Absolute belief with zero evidence to support it. This is illogical and the most fundamental reason that atheists are atheists. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Belief isnt a matter of will. What i want doesnt matter. Im just not convinced that god is real, im convinced by evidence that he isnt. Just like you dont choose to believe in him, you are just convinced unconscously that he's real. True, you shouldnt have gotten into an argument you couldnt finnish but i didnt pressure you so i could gloat or rub it in your face, i did it to make a point. The fact that you cant continue this argument shows that you need to do some research. It also shows that your side is weaker then mine and this argument showed that. im not gloating, just showing you that maybe its time you took a step back and looked at religion and really thought about it. and read some things for and against god and religion and really think about things. Not many people do this. Once again im not trying to be a jackass. It was a good debate. I just hope this was a little nudge to get you to open yourself to all of the information out there for you to investigate. Good luck friend Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Good and I absolutely welcome you to do so. However I urge you to read non biased sources from respectable sites. No creationism.org or discovery institute stuff because believe me that is all bunk. And I don't see how you can try to be an atheist. It isn't something you can try to be. You're either one or you're not. You can't try to not believe in god. So go ahead and read up on your stuff, I look foward to our next debate! But beware confirmation bias! Side: Yes
Before I start diging up proof, you should prove the universe never began and allways was. The cyclical theory surmises that there are two flat branes collide repeatedly for eternity creating "big bangs" every time that happens. http://www.physics.princeton. Secondly, God by definition is the best explanation for the birth of the universe. That is assuming that the universe had a beginning, and no particles pop into existence all the time, the gravitron for example. And God is simply not a valid answer to the creation of the universe because it tells you that the universe is here, but nothing as to how that came to be. Side: No
1
point
That is called special pleading. "The universe absolutely NEEDED a creator. That was God. Well GOD didnt need a creator. Hes GOD" Thats idiotic. Theres also no proof that the universe had a beginning. It very well may have always existed. And just because it may have had a beginning doesnt mean it had to have a creator will it into existence. The beginning cause may have very well been natural in and of itself. And at the very end of the day even if i grant you that A god created the universe, its a massive non sequitur to say that it was YOUR god as opposed to an infinate amount of possible deities from history, now, and to be invented in the future. Side: No
The universe had a beginning. Therefore it had a creator. You almost got it right. Our universe had multiple creators working together, they are called "Onew". Onew enter existence when the dimensions of space are initially expanded, so our spacial dimensions along with existence are proof that Onew exist. There is an entity that has always and will always exist called "The Oer", who initially expands the spacial dimensions of a universe, while that is all we know him to do, the fact that we have spacial dimensions is proof it exists. I would love to have you as a follower of our Onew, Ruazenith. Don't feel obligated, Ruazenith only wants those who want eternal life, if you are happy with one life feel free to turn away. Side: No
1
point
even though I am not going to ever change my religious belief. As I was telling another person, as long as you are happy living under you belief then more power to you, you should enjoy your one life that way, Ruazenith wants nothing more. If you don't want your existence to end here, maybe you should open your mind a bit. Is this a religious belief, a theory or both? We make no claims of anything supernatural existing, or in the existence of any gods, so it is not a religious belief. There is a group of people who used to desire to assist the progress to the Final State, but they decided it was more logical to worship The Oer (what we call the cause of our spatial dimensions), which can only be false worship because they claim The Oer has qualities they haven't been able to demonstrate. They believe that they can directly address The Oer, but that is just faith, and is a religion. I do not agree with them. So accepting the existence of Ruazenith isn't a religion, but it also isn't a theory. A theory is the pinnacle of science. Things like gravity and evolution are theories, things that are undisputed. Ruazenith's existence is a hypothesis, it isn't contradicted by any present scientific knowledge, but we still have more research to do. We have plenty of anecdotal, historical, and archaeological evidence, but we want to do some testing, both on some of our earlier writings, like those of Jesus Christ, to ensure authenticity, as well as some genetic research (most people are descended of an aligner, which mean they have some genetic knowledge of Ruazenith, it's Avatars, Aligners, and parts of the Final State. We are looking for genes responsible for this knowledge.) Side: Yes
1
point
Yes. It's perfectly possible that a God exist. I don't understand how people can say it's statistically unlikely that a God exist. First, define God. Second, provide arguments that this God doesn't exist. By the way, evolution, though it is a popular theory is certainly not evidence against God. It's still very possible that what we percieve as "Evolution" really isn't, but has some intelligent direction to it, or that God used evolution and natural selection to create intelligent life. What most people are arguing, whether they realize it or not, is that the Christian God specifically doesn't exist. But there are a lot of alternative Gods that may. I think there is overwhelming evidence that God exist, and that there is a general bias to refute the legion of evidence because of its frightening implications, considering that the world is so imperfect, dangerous and chaotic. For example, God might see man as man see insects: as interesting little creatures that deserve some respect, but shouldn't be treated all too seriously (hey, consider the fate of the dinosaurs). Interesting alternative possibilities also come up. I do believe God exist, and I also see more evidence to suggest that God exist than the alternative, but I don't pretend to believe that God is necessarily a Saint, either. God is more like an organism with its own existential ambitious - and it can be deadly. Side: Yes
|
“Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” Douglas Adams..... I think this is enough.......!! And I Dont think god can exist. And even if he existed, he might have commited suicide by now after living in those clouds for so long..!!! Side: No
And I Dont think god can exist. And even if he existed, he might have commited suicide by now after living in those clouds for so long..!!! The last part of the argument states that he might have committed suicide. That is saying that He could exist. Thats why the argument made no sense, which leads contextually to an understanding that the first part of the argument was stating that God does not exist. Do not be derogatory to someone who defeats you in every argument. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
There's zero evidence for his existence scientifically or otherwise and the universe and life are far better explained by natural phenomena like evolution. The failure of prayer and the large amount of flaws in the bible. And the fact that any atheistic argument has never been defeated with a theistic one. Ever. And those are just a few Side: No
1
point
1
point
|