God probably exists

Hey Con, It's a shame that I can't respond to all of your points in this debate, but I will reply to what you provided. Ontological Argument "Although the ontological argument for the existence of God can be formulated in modal logic, it cannot be derived from the axioms of modal logic alone. An additional premise/axiom is needed, namely the premise 2)" Of course - I never denied this. [It is Subjunctively possible that a Maximally Great Being exists] "This statement, together with the definition of "Maximally Great Being" I find nonsensical. It can be formulated in modal logic, but that does not make it true or self-evident." Well you need to explain just why you find it nonsensical. Because I argued that there are no contradictions within the notion of a Maximally Great Being, due to how the notion It is not a logical impossibility - we can imagine a possible world in which a maximally great being exists. If you are to back up your statement, you need to say why you find it to be nonsensical. "Yes, we can apply modal logic to novels. Modal logic is just a formal language with symbols. We can apply this formal language to different situations and as long as the axioms of modal logic are satisfied with this interpretation of the symbols appearing." This is simply false. Sure, Modal Logic is a formal language. But Modal logic is used to test the truth of a universal statement or judgement - such as, whether a maximally great being exists. A novel however is not a possible world and cannot be applied in the same way - while we may be able to apply modal logic to things such as novels, the analogy was treating the novel like it was the possible world, and this is just wrong. A novel is not a medium for modal logic to operate in - it is the object of Modal logic, not the mechanism of it. So the challenge of "writing a character so powerful that it transcends the novel and enters every novel known to man" is therefore obsurd. "But, we can also interpret these symbols as: #: in real live and in all novels it is true that ^: in real live and/or in some novels it is true that" Yes, the basic principles of Modal logic can be applied to a novel - I never denied this. But what I do deny is the notion that a novel can be equated to a possible world, which is what your analogy tried to assert. They are simply not the same, and axiom S5 cannot be applied in the same way either therefore. So the Novel analogy simply fails. "I could imagine, that in some world it is necessary that God does not exist. According to S5 modal logic, it is necessary that God does not exist. In particular, God does not exist." Sure, you could say that, this would be an objection to premise 2. But now you have said it, you now have a burden of proof to show just how, in some possible world, it is necessary that God is a logical impossibility. And you have not done that as of yet. "I do not accept this to be true. Or, at least if PRO wants to convince me that this is true, he should explain what exactly "possible", "necessary" and "possibly necessary" mean in real life." Possible - logically coherent, but does not necessarily exist in the real world. Necessary - Existing in every logical description of reality. You cannot form a logical description of reality without a necessary being existing within it. As such, it must exist in the real world. Possibly necessary - To be logically coherent for a necessary being to exist. Another way of saying 'necessary'. (As, to be necessary means to exist in every logical description of reality, if it is therefore possible for that necessary being to exist, then a necessary being exists in at least 1 logical description of reality. Bt it therefore follows that the necessary being must exist in every possible description of reality, as a necessary being cannot merely exist in 1 description of reality, but must exist in all) Conclusion As this is my last round, maybe some concluding remarks are necessary. First of all, thanks to black_squirrel for this great debate. Also, thanks to all the viewers and future voters. In this debate, I presented 2 arguments. However, neither of them have been successfully refuted by Con in my opinion. There hasn't been substantive discussion concerning the Introspection argument, but of the discussion that has occurred, I don't think that that we have heard any serious objection, and so the argument still stands. As for the Ontological Argument, there has been more discussion, but I think that I have refuted all objections successfully. And so the motion is passed - God probably exists. Thanks everyone, see you around. לבריאות Sources: http://johnmacfarlane.net... http://www.manyworldsoflogic.com...