The Ontological Argument

Did he offer sound refutations of the argument? I don't think so. Please note that everything in bold is a quote from Con, and immediately below is my response to the quote. "True, I am an atheist so I obviously believe that NONE of the arguments for the existence of God are convincing, but to me, this one sticks out as particularly unconvincing. Probably because, to my knowledge, no one has ever been convinced by it. " No one has ever been convinced by it? Well, lets see, Christian defender William Lane Craig has been convinced by it, so much so that he's used the argument in his debates and also spoke of it in his books. Christian defender Alvin Plantiga is also convinced by it, and it is his version of the argument which we are discussing here. Finally, I, myself, is convinced by it. Not to mention the many different versions of the argument that has been floating around since 9th century philosopher St. Anselm originated the argument. So in other words, many people have been convinced by it in the past, and even today. "No, absolutely not. This is a very weird burden of proof to put on me. The only thing I have to do to dismantle the argument is to demonstrate that it is either unsound (the premises are not all true) or invalid. " Con is objecting to my "burden of proof", as I stated that in order for him to dismantle the argument, he must explain why the existence of a Supreme Being is impossible. He said "the only thing he has to do is demonstrate that the premises are unsound/invalid. " Well, I'd like to remind Con that one of the premises of the argument (P2) is that the existence of a Supreme Being is possible. That is one of the premises, so if he attacks that premise, then he is in fact doing exactly what I said he must do, which is demonstrate why the existence of a Supreme Being is not possible. "Saying that God is a being that exists necessarily is assuming the conclusion, which is a form of circular reasoning. " Not at all. I am merely defining God, and it just so happens that "necessary existence" is part of the essence of God's being. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of God is: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe. In order to "create and rule" the universe, one would have to exist necessarily. So I will ask Con, is Webster dictionary also using a form of circular reasoning as it defineds God? "It is basically saying "since God exists necessarily, then God exists". With this premiss, I do not see the use of anything else. " Again, not at all. The argument starts off by defining God, and then it gives reasons why such a being's existence, as defined, is possible. "This definition of God (assuming that omnipotence is only limited by logic) is completely defeated by the problem of evil. Freewill does not solve the issue by the way. " The problem of evil? In order to use the problem of evil for anything, Con would have to assume an objective standard by which one can judge or determine what is considered "good", or "evil". On atheism, I just don't see where such a standard could come from, especially given moral relativism (descriptive). "There is a big problem with the conclusion. Saying that Item X has attribute Y only means: "if X exists, then it is Y". Considering this, the conclusion becomes: "If God exists, then God exists", which is a useless tautology" I don't understand what Con is talking about here. He quoted me as saying "Therefore, God exists", and I am unable to correlate what he said based upon what he quoted me as saying. "While I agree that omnibenevolence is the pinnacle of greatness (when we are considering conscious beings), I have a bit of trouble imagining how it is possible to be objectively moral. Depending on your definition of morality, objective morality may not actually exist. " Now this is interesting. You (I will drop the "Con" stuff) just stated that you have trouble imagining how it is possible to be objectively moral, yet you previously used the problem of evil in your rebuttal? If there is no objective standard, then there can be no objective problem of evil. At best you are left with moral relativism. .. everything becomes subjective. "But the problem with greatness is that it is not limited by the four omnis, it can imply a whole lot of other things which would actually "prove" that this particular God does not exist, such as:1) A maximally great being would save JFK2) JFK was not saved3) A maximally great being does not exist"For this, I will appeal to what can be called "morally sufficient reason(s)". Assuming that God exists, he may have morally sufficient reasons to allow JFK to be killed, and as long as this is even possible, all of God's acts (or failure to act) may be justified.1) A maximally great being would make his existence apparent2) His existence is not apparent3) This maximally great being does not existThis is completely subjective. God's existence may not be apparent to you, but it is apparent to me. "In a world where there is no evil, I would probably agree. " But you said earlier "I have a bit of trouble imagining how it is possible to be objectively moral. " "No. The fact that it is POSSIBLE for this being to exist in some possible does not mean that it actually DOES exist in some possible and therefore it does NOT have to exist in our world. "We are talking about necessary truths here. Necessary truths are truths that are true in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS. 1+1 cannot equal 2 in our world, but 5 in another world. Mathematical truths are necessary truths which are true in all possible worlds, in all possible circumstances. So if God's existence is necessary, it has to be necessary in all possible worlds. So as I said in my explanation of 3 (which you granted) if it is possible for a MGB to exist in another possible world besides our own, then this being would have to exist in our world, since our world is one of the "possible" worlds. The second premiss of this modus ponen is lacking:Normally, we have:1) If A, then B2) A3) Therefore BBut my opponent presented:1)If A, then B2) Therefore B"Lets look at what my opponent said: Normally, we have:1) If A, then B2) A3) Therefore BThat kind of looks like my argument1. ) If God's existence is possible, then God exist2. ) God's existence is possible3. ) Therefore, God exists Its the same thing, basically. The only thing left out of the equation in this shorter version is the possible world semantics, but essentially, this is the argument once you take away the fluff and the feathers. Contrary to what my opponent thinks, he has given us no reason why the existence of God isn't possible, and I don't think he can, so I am inclined to believe that the argument is valid. "Absolutely not. Possibility does not imply actuality. "Yes it does, when we are talking about necessary truths. If something is possibly necessarily true, then it must be actually true. There is no such thing as a proposition that is possibily necessarily true, but actually false. If it is actually false, then it was never possibly necessarily true! !! That is the point; If God's existence is possible, then it must be actual. "Moreover, I have yet to be convinced that existence is an attribute of greatness. One could argue that it is greater for something to transcend reality, therefore not being a part of reality (therefore not actually being real). " If something isn't real, then it doesn't exist! !! How can something that doesn't exist transcend anything, let alone be great? "I reject that outright. This is simply a semantic trick that tries to define God as something that exists. Using the same trick, I could define the realicorn as "a unicorn that actually exists". Would realicorns then really exist? Obviously not. "My response to this is simple. If you define this "realicorn" with every attribute that I've defined God as. .then the being that you are call "realicorn" is actually another word for. .. "God". The argumenet is not meant to tell us how such a being looks, and how it manifests itself, etc. It just makes a case that such a being exists.