It is not true that God exists

Pro begins the argument claiming hers will be an ontological argument, and defines God as “greatest being,” but then proceeds to compare this proposed greatest being to things, which are different entities than beings. Further, ontology is a metaphysic exercise in the nature of being, and not the nature of things, nor not-being. Therefore, Pro’s entire argument seems a contradiction to what ontology concludes: that a “greatest being” can exist, not that it cannot exist. I find the entire Pro argument fails on failure to both provide a definition or argument of ontology, let alone hold to the nature of being as its sole emphasis. Further, Pro argues that the mind cannot believe in something it cannot fully contain. There are examples to provide to demonstrate an ability to understand and believe concepts about which we are not fully informed.

Con has a more consistent argument, just because whether the debate resolve is at odds with itself by definition, the Con argument is sensible: “Belief need not strictly mean that you understand the truth, but rather that you accept as true, lacking the understanding of it.” And, “I will disagree with your definition of truth, since by it you seem to think that in order for truth to exist, one must understand it.” Con draws the example of “rocket science,” which most of us approach as being euphemistically complicated; most of us common folks do not understand a bit of it, yet we observe its action in delivering a payload to outer space, and “believe” the delivery, therefore, the science to produce and transport it.

Con’s discussion of “what is” and “what could be,” sealed the Argument phase of the debate. It was a clear, though brief — in thus case, brevity was yet complete — thus a logical conclusion that God is the purity of “what is,” and thus, the “greatest being,” is not merely a “thing,” in reality, and is thus believable, even in a limited degree, which successfully denied the claim by Pro that such lack of full containment is refutable. It even fit with Pro’s definition of truth: “…something we consider real after being presented with proof.” What was not real was Pro’s argument on application of ontology.

Though both participants did not fully develop arguments [character count limitation and argument round limitation has much to do with this result], I conclude Con has the better argument. 3 points to Con

Sourcing: Neither participant offered outside sources. 0 points for Pro and Con.

Legibility: Both Pro and Con’s offering was fully legible: 1 point to both Pro and Con.

Conduct: Both Pro and Con’s offered professional conduct: 1 point to both Pro and Con.

Con wins, 5 points to Pro’s 2.