The Modal Ontological argument for God's existence is sound

MAXIMAL GREATNESS "The argument at no point attempts to prove that such a being created"" // RESPONSE ~But that"s the focal point and what this whole argument is leading up to, that God created the universe. But that"s beside the point, as the syllogism does not establish the existence of "said" being, because it simply assumes it must exist on the virtue of it being "the greatest thing possible."~ - "No, we are not using ignorance. We are using logic and reason"" // RESPONSE ~But at what point have you used logic and reason to demonstrate why the concept of a maximally great being must be what you arbitrarily label? You say the greatest possible thing must exist, but who decides what is "great?" We have no standards of measurement other than opinions. As I have stated, some cultures/philosophies value emptiness and view it as the essence/greatness of existence. - "Sure, but it is not necessary for the argument to succeed at all"" // RESPONSE But my point is that the argument becomes pointless, because you fail to prove what is great to begin with, and in what way it is maximally great. Furthermore, if that "greatest being" is unconscious, it destroys your resolution, as your whole point is to prove that "God" exists, which you gave a few characteristics to in round 2. - "Well this is merely an insulting, inaccurate depiction of any sort of Theology there is"" // RESPONSE Well not to offend you, but I am looking at it like how I would look at any other narcissistic obsessive behavior. I think if you create a creature(s) and "offer" it the choice to worship you or "choose" to go to hell" Well, I suppose everyone has their own definition of blackmail. - OBJECTION #1 "No, absolutely not. But that is not what I argued" // RESPONSE I fail to see how any of this follows. First of all, I believe I have established that greatness is relative beyond a mathematical observation. Secondly, even if granted that we can make up our own standard of "greatness," just because something has the potential to exist, does not mean it necessarily must. We can build a castle in the moon and put Disney Land inside it, but I just don"t see how the potential must be translated to existence. You say it must be so, because "it is maximally great," but what if to be maximally great is to simply not exist at all? The problem is that you arbitrarily list the characteristics of what is "maximally great" without any objective standards. Simply said, if "maximally great being" is ultimately relative, the syllogism means nothing. - Absolutely, you are right on every account. These are possible worlds, most certainly" // RESPONSE But if in fact, "other worlds" exist, we have no reason to believe that those worlds are subjected to the same limits and standards of our own world. If you are suggesting that there are merely multi-verses or some parallel universes, well then you must prove that such worlds exist, before they are relevant for discussion. As it stands, this is not a logical argument; as it is basing all of its logic on suppositions that have not been proven to be true either reasonably or evidently. - "No! This is only the case for necessary beings or concepts." // RESPONSE But that"s the thing, who are we to decide what is necessary and what is not, especially in a "possible" world that we know nothing of? Also you have not established how necessity equates to greatness, or indeed, how existence is even a necessity. Nothing has to exist by a necessity. I could just as well conceive a world without anything. - "No, I would be quite confident in saying that in any possible world, there cannot be a square circle" // RESPONSE Certainly there are logical truths in a universe ruled by logic and physics, but if there are "other worlds," we have no reason to believe that they have the same logic or physics that binds our own universe, if in fact, these worlds even exist. That said anything beyond the sphere of the "physical universe" is up for interpretation. In a world of chaos, things can literally pop into and out of existence, and anything can happen defying all logic, rules, physics, etc. And in fact, this world of "chaos" may be what originated our own universe. But I digress. My main point is that, you arbitrarily limit the world of other worlds based on the logic of this one, applying universal rules (That only applies to THIS universe) to supposed, possible, imaginary world that may or may not exist. - // "With the problem of evil, I would say that it is trivially easy to show to be redundant"" // RESPONSE Your answer does not solve anything, as the conditions of the tsunami and how much people it kills is all within the intent and control of God. How does an all-loving God justify creating a world full of suffering, when it is in his power to create a world without it? Your argument makes no sense, since God is justifying the circumstances he himself is liable for. There wouldn"t be overpopulation or tsunami without God allowing it to happen in the first place. Not to mention, where is the justice for 200,000 people killed off by God to prevent overpopulation? Your refutation is problematic, at best, and solves none of the problems of evil. - "With the Euthyphro Dilemma, again, is easy to show redundant - Things are good because they are rooted within the nature of God. [6]" // RESPONSE That is just another way of saying God is good because it is good to be God. And if all creation is within the nature of God (a product of him), then EVERYTHING must be good, and evil must not exist. The argument fails. - "With predestination, all God's foreknowledge means is that God knows what we will freely do in any set of circumstances. It doesn't by any stretch that we don't have free-will just because God knows what we will freely do. [7]" // RESPONSE If god is the initial condition for existence, and he has foreknowledge of all knowledge, then all creation is bound by his knowledge, not BECAUSE he knows, but because he KNEW the consequences of everything before anything even existed. Again, Pro"s argument fails. - "Just a quick not, Christianity has nothing to do with this debate, so when Con puts in brackets 'older than Christ', it is not at all relevant to the debate." // RESPONSE Certainly, it does not, I was merely pointing out that these problems have existed for a long time, and we can"t ignore these arguments especially in debating the characteristics of God. Also the God of Christianity (or some other mainstream "JudeoChristian-like" God) is evidently the standards of your "Maximally great being" so I think it is relevant in that sense. - "OBJECTION #2 "As I have already said, great-making properties are necessary truths - for if they were not, then they would not be great"" // RESPONSE I disagree, because basically the argument is STATING that it is greater to exist than not to exist, therefore your WHOLE syllogism is revolving around the relativity of greatness. You argue that greatness is a standard, but based upon WHAT standard are we measuring this? You essentially say that if you can do more, you are greater. This is true in a mathematical sense 1 < 2, but nothing more. Daoists believe that emptiness is the essence of existence, and in fact, everything is empty and just an illusion. Your greatness is just YOU stating that it is great on the virtue of your beliefs. There is NO logical or reasonable imperative to humor your standards as universal. - "Not at all. What the Modal Ontological Argument shows is that by the sheer possibility of a maximally great being existing, then it must, by definition exist"" // RESPONSE But you arbitrarily define what "by definition" must exist. The burden goes back to Pro to provide a sufficient amount of confidence or reason as to why we must accept these definitions, mainly what makes something great in the abstract, which I maintain is relative, or at best, something we can never measure objectively. Therefore, all of these premises are unsound to begin with, as the premises are reliant on arbitrary definitions that have not been proven to be true or even reasonable. It would be different if "greatness" was given an objective standard, but instead I was given a statement that "greatness" implies existence because it would not be great if it did not exist. - "I think that on a number of occasions, Con gets confused with what 'possible world' means. I doesn't mean some sort of parallel universe, that ACTUALLY exists. It just means a coherent form of reality. I say this because I'm not quite sure if Con completely understood the concept." // RESPONSE If a possible world is just a coherent form of reality, then it is simply the extent of the imagination, for anything may be deemed coherent when you have creative control over the rules/definitions. CONCLUSION First and foremost, thanks to Nzrsaa for the debate. I also thank the readers for their interest. That said I believe I have consistently pointed out the flaws in Pro"s syllogism, and have, therefore, refuted the resolution. Thanks again for the debate.