2/ The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability or handicap of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. Therefore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being"namely, one who created everything while not existing.
5. An existing God, therefore, would not be a being than which a greater cannot be conceived, because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
6. (Hence) God does not exist.
My opponent demonstrates an extraordinary amount of logical errors, not to mention spelling/grammatical ones. The debate title itself which is fundamental is incoherent. Therefore, it is necessary to guess the topic title through inductive means. Using such means, the topic title is probably a spelling mistake (figures) and you actually mean "God exists". I have also concluded that there is someone eating the punctuations.
This might suggest an equal burden of proof. However, my opponent's introduction suggests otherwise, My opponent holds belief in an argument and makes a challenge to disprove it.
There are multiple definitions of "God". The only characteristic I can deduce from my opponent's excuse for an argument is omnipotence which is stated in point 5. I will assume that this is the definition of God my opponent means, an omnipotent being. That does not mean he is benevolent or omniscient.
So the burden of proof is tilted to your side since the whole idea behind this debate seems to be "Disprove this argument". I apologize if I was inaccurate thus far, correct me if that is the case.
He assumes the existence of potentially infinite number of worlds, realities, multiverses. You know, the stuff used to dismiss the fine tuning argument. The assumption is legit since we cannot prove our own reality really exists. Therefore, if the existence of an omnipotence entity is logical, then it is a possibility that can exist. Therefore, if it is possible for an omnipotence being to exist in a reality then he must exist in all realities including ours.
I don't expect an argument against the points from 2 to 5 as they are related to omnipotent. To disprove this argument you must disprove premise one, that it is not possible for an omnipotent being to exist.
"We can conceive a greater being"namely, one who created everything while not existing".
There you go, a premise is found to be illogical. Therefore, we cannot reach the conclusion whatever it is with the said argument.
Ex nihilo nihil fit, Nothing comes from nothing. That is a principle that is agreed upon from early philosophy till now. Calling Something "Nothing" is an oxymoron and a self-refuting statement, if it is the lack of something then nothing is still something, it is simply not anything.
Ok.. I.. Uh... *Rereading*... *Cough*.
First, I would like to congratulate my opponent for finding an argument online. Indeed, the internet have started the golden age of ill and illogical arguments. it is relatively easy to find them.
My opponent makes the irrational assumption that we are all knowledgeable in something, but it is impossible to prove that statement. He also commits an Appeal to Novelty, which is claiming that something is better because it is more modern. However that have nothing to do with validity, and how did he conclude that atheism is not older than theism and we went beyond that point? He also seems to make a generalization, I am no expert at mythical creatures, but I do not recall any type of fairies being associated with powers as strong as universe-creating, this does seems to be a strawman or hasty generalization. He then... Ah... Give me a second to reread through that stuff *rereads*... OK, so the argument was made by Douglas Gasking  (1911–1994). My opponent have an interesting concept of "new". My opponent is so convinced by this ground-breaking argument. However, I will demonstrate that it is baseball bat made out of sponge.
That statement is subjective. Thus, can't be used as a fact. Even if no one managed to imagine a more marvelous achievement, that does not mean that feat is not possible, we just cannot determine a finishing line, and it is a fallacy from multiple standpoints to do so. Not only is this a subjective statement in a deductive argument, it is also a relative statement without mentioning the relation. "Imaginable" to who? Humans? God?
That absolutely does not work in case the creator was omnipotent as weakness is contradicted by omnipotence. No matter how much you subtract from infinite as a value, it remains infinite. So an omnipotent God would be the strongest entity in existence, and logically weakness would have no place in his characteristics.
Second of all, we have no scale to compare this achievement with. Perhaps this is a non-impressive achievement to even a non-omnipotent god. The author irrationally assumes that this is the ultimate achievement in existance. Alright, lets play with his game, even if that is the best achievement imaginable and it has a value. The value is still limited (Not an omni-value?). How does this measure the potency of a non-omnipotent God? His powers can be dozens of times the value of this "Ultimate Imaginable Achievement", if a non-omnipotent God have the ability to create a more impressive achievement does not mean he have the imagination to do so.
And last but not least, a non-existent creator would have the achievement value of absolute zero.
Really? How do you explain that I am greater being than a non-existent God? If not anything qualifies as God, then everything that is existent also qualifies as God as they have a higher value and potency. Therefore, I have completed my resolution assuming that nothing is great enough to be considered a God.
The author based this argument on false equivalence. In fact, this argument works in favor of confirming that God exists. A being who creates everything while not existing is a logical impossibility, for the argument to be compared to the idea of God, it must be proven that the idea of God is incoherent and as impossible as "Nothing creates everything". The argument only reinforces that if the universe was created, it would need a creator. Thus, God would a neccessity in that case.
You said any rational person would agree. Definition of rational?
wow this is really stupid. pro is trying to look all smart and intellect when his argument is really just a bunch of BS.
the ontolgoical argument is pretty stupid, almost all philoshers agree on this point. no one even takes it sersiously anymore. for isntance here is a quote from dawkins: the ontolgical argument is "dialectical prestidigitation" meaning its compete horse-crap. but i will refute it anyway.
"If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world"
no this is just another example of chrsitians trying to be scientists. no this is not even how this works. many worlds happen because of the multiverse but the multiverse isnt even in philosphy. just because a multiverse exists doesnt mean god exists in one of them that is pretty stupid. i mean here is a quot.
"Gods are no more likely to exist in any Universe than a planet of dancing dogs quoting Shakespeare."
you say that i cant even say tht something can create while not existing well i say it can. for example we know that a vacum can create a quantum particle. we know this because of science. if science didnt say that then maybe you would have a point but phsyics have come far far far past what you are saying.
for instance here is a quote.
"For example, a particle pair can pop out of the vacuum during a very short time interval."
so you can create while not existing. its stupid to say otherwise, you are just being ignorant of science.
for example creationists often ignore science like evolution just to ay that god creatied eveyrhting. well he didnt and they should just shut up. what is more likely is that god didnt exist and create everything. more likely.
i hope pro will not be as retarded in the next round with a crap ontolgoical arugment.
I am not even sure if my opponent is being frivolous in this debate or if this is how he usually acts. However,for the sake of this debate, I shall ignore his flawed definitions of "Intelligent" and "Stupid".
I feel no use to include any further arguments that supports my position. The debate was based on a parody of the ontological argument argument and I shall focus on this particular argument in order to prove an omnipotent being's existence.
My opponent further demonstrates flawed logic. Seriously, where do you bring that stuff from? I will assume you mean the academia standards for a philosopher, since it can be argued that everyone is a philosopher. Proving the claim that almost all philosophers agree to your opinion of the ontological argument is impossible. Even when assuming all philosophers asked will answer truthfully, which changes the claim to "Almost all philosophers claim to agree to this point", we will need to ask almost all philosophers to prove this claim.
I am not really sure what is my opponent's point, even if we assume his claim is true. What does this have to do with the validity of my argument if no argument is provided?
My opponent also seem to want to awaken my inner Dawkinphobia by resorting to an argument from authority. Basically, if Dawkins says it, then it must be true.
Therefore, I have proved that God exists to all who appeal to the authority of Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins is always right, and he have conceded to the ontological argument. (2) Therefore, there is no necessity to investigate who have the more convincing argument further.
As for those who do not appeal to authority please continue.
I give up... on restraining myself from laughing. You gotta be kidding me. First of all, how do you know I am a christian? (I am not) Second of all, even if I was a christian, I would not be a group of Christians, unless you claim that there is a conspiracy among a bunch of Christians to appear as scientists on this debate. Also, are you saying that Christians cannot be scientists?
As for the dude talking about dancing dogs. 1- A dancing dog is a contingent proposition, meaning that it exists in some worlds but not in others. However, God is a necessarily true propositions, which means must exist in all worlds. Everything rational must exist in some possible worlds, so you cannot have something impossible like a square circle or a married bachelor, but laws and concepts exists in all possible worlds.
2- The yahoo answers (Is that even a source?) troll makes another false equalization regarding complexity. We are not talking about a certain God, we are only talking about an omnipotent God/being, complexity may vary. It could be an omnipotent tri-headed, one winged six-legged, omnipotent unicorn flying spaghetti monster, which is relatively complex. It could also be an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, omnipotent being, which is not complex at all. Mind as an entity or concept is simple.
3- Finally, the yahoo answers guy assumes that God's existence is based on chance. Meaning that we may exist in a world where God exists or a world where God does not exist. I seriously doubt many theists actually believe that. Either way, God's existence is based on necessity as I have previously stated, to counter that you must prove that God's existence is impossible.
*Note that I only care about an omnipotent being*. The other characteristics of God does not concern me. Our knowledge of the characteristics of God is limited. It is possible that we may learn a number of them via. the Kalam Cosmological Argument or the moral arguments and perhaps others if they are sound. Still, they would be red herring to the topic at hand.
If an omnipotent God can exist, then he exists in some possible worlds. By definition he would exists in all worlds as well, our actual world included. Therefore, God exists in our world.
Oh boy. You did it again. Whatever it is you just did it. Again.
"the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space"
This just horrible. Not only did my opponent source freaking Wikipedia and made an illogical claim from the highest degree possible. He sourced it wrong... Face-palm time?
So according to my opponent's pseudo-science. Nothing which is treated as something can create at least particles. That means the existence of explanations and equations is meaningless.
I will humble myself and source Wikipedia as I am forced to get down on my opponent's level.
This is a strawman and a clear distortion of science.
"He dismisses the ontological argument as “infantile” and “dialectical prestidigitation” without quite identifying the defect in its logic."
Definition not related to the physics term excluded.
A facepalm, courtesy of my opponent's beliefs.
Anyways. I wish ya good luck climbing through the mountain of ignorance. Here is a song.
If God doesn't exist like Con says, God can't exit, either. Or enter. I advise Con proofreads a little more carefully.
Con uses offensive language in his second round. I would not vote con.
Plus con misunderstands nothing. He first says that something can come from nothing. Then he says a vacuum can create a quantum particle.
You made an incorrect comparison. The same God exists in all possible worlds, not copy pastes of the same God.
It is possible for an alternative world where this debate did not happen. Where something existed/did not exist. However, the thing must be coherent. There can be a world where unicorns or big fish definitely exist, but there is no world that contain something impossible like a perfect square circle. So if it is possible an omnipotent being can exist.
However. If that being does not exist in every possible world, that would contradict his omnipotent powers. Thus he won't be a Maximally Great Being, but an omnipotent creator is possible so his omnipotent powers would have universal authority in this world even if he originated in an other world. So his existence in other possible realities is a necessity by definition, while big fish/unicorns in different world are not connected to each other.
"3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world."
that a big fish exists in every possible water.
hey rja7... not rtying to be mean, but as long as peopleunderstand its really not even that big of a deal.
no matter what kind of proof or disproof is given, people will choose to believe whatever they want to believe.
No debate will convince anyone because individual standard of believing in anything will depend on individual knowledge and understanding about life and experience.
There is no one who can prove the proof you have, there therefore this debate is complete waste of time.
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented an illogical argument (something non-existent cannot create anything), and completely misunderstood the Modal Ontological Argument. Plantinga's argument can be easily refuted, but Con missed the mark. Plus Con forfeited last around. I gave grammar and spelling to Pro as well.