The Instigator
Dr.Franklin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Keplor
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

The Ontological Argument is Sound

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Keplor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 318 times Debate No: 123709
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Dr.Franklin

Pro

972 year old debate
Keplor

Con

Obviously, I am taking the position that the ontological argument is not logically sound. Since you did not state the premises of the argument, I will do so from what I have heard the famous Christian apologists William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga call the ontological or modal ontological argument:

1) It is possible that God (Maximally Great Being) exists.
2) If it is possible that God (MGB) exists, Then God exists in some possible worlds.
3) If God (MGB) exists in some possible worlds, Then God (MGB) exists in all possible worlds.
4) If God (MGB) exists in all possible worlds, Then God (MGB) exists in the actual world.
5) If God (MGB) exists in the actual world, Then God exists.

Do you agree with there premises or do you have something else in mind?

This argument contains mutable fallacies including begging the question and equivocation which have rendered it completely debunked and outdated. So for your first point, I disagree that this argument is 972 years old because it already ended without the acknowledgement of many people. I would show how every individual step of this argument is flawed, But someone else has already done that for me in this video I linked. Https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=jt2dywK1RZs I highly recommend that you watch this or else I'll just be repeating things from the video. I'll be interested to see what you have to say about it but (not trying to be condescending) I wouldn't be too surprised if this made you rethink your position on the ontological argument, Because in my opinion, It is one of the weakest arguments for God when analysed closely.
Debate Round No. 1
Dr.Franklin

Pro

ok boomer
Keplor

Con

It looks like I've already won this debate. If that's all you have to say then you might as well just own up to the fact that you were wrong and move on with it. Glad I could show you that this argument should never be used against someone who knows what they are talking about.
Debate Round No. 2
Dr.Franklin

Pro

ok boomer
Keplor

Con

You are unpredictable. Please do research and think a little harder before presenting an argument only used by people who know that it's ridiculous and only want to deny the truth and convince people that they're right simply because they can't admit that they're wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 years ago
Dr.Franklin
ok boomer
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Sounds like you want to be able to move the goal post in the middle of the argument.
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 years ago
Dr.Franklin
@missmedic

What if someone trolls
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
You have yet to state the argument. . .
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Dr.FranklinKeplorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Ok boomer is poor conduct
Vote Placed by Leaning 2 years ago
Leaning
Dr.FranklinKeplorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems bad conduct to me, to say "ok boomer", and nothing else. Seems dismissive/rude to one's opponent. Con explained the premise of The Ontological Argument in round one, and explained why he saw it as flawed, stating "fallacies including begging the question and equivocation". And assumable would have been willing to go into more detail if Pro had constructed any argument in rounds 2 and 3, which Pro did not.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.