God probably exists. (Version 2).

First off, my opponent's burden of proof is to show that "God is probably real". If he cannot do that; he has failed. He accepted this (rule four) by joining the debate. "Whether God is possible is the key question. " No it's not. The question is "Is God probable? ", merely expressed as a resolution, hence, "God probably exists". If my opponent has proved God's existence to be not probable, but absolute, then he has failed in his burden. So either: a) My opponent has presented an (if logically solid) argument to prove the existence of God. Thus, he has showed it is not probable, and has failed. Or: b) My opponent doesn't see his argument as logical - thus he has committed logical fallacies - and failed to meet his burden. The resolution is quite simple. Thus far, my opponent has not met his burden. Nevertheless (for the spirit of the debate), I will continue to refute the argument my opponent presents. "(1) A maximally great being is possible. (2) A maximally great being exists in some possible world. (3) A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Refer to the definition of maximally great) (4) A maximally great being exists in the actual world. " Premise one has failed; I will show why. The burden of proof. As a default, the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion[1] (in this case that God is probable - even though my opponent's argument, if it is true, has won me the debate by showing how God is not probable, but absolute). My opponent still makes claims with no evidence. "It simply is the rule in modal logic that all things are possible unless logically incomprehensible. " I will make my own claim. "It is simply the rule in modal logic that the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the assertion. This can be shown because modal logic is an extension of logic[2], and in logic, the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion[1]. Therefore, the burden of proof in modal logic lies with the one making the assertion. " Or, to put it another way: P1: In logic, the burden of proof lies with the one that makes the assertion[1]. P2: Modal logic is an extension of logic[2]. C: Therefore, in modal logic, the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion. Unless my opponent can provide more than claims, I am allowed to dismiss them. My opponent might want to cite sources, for example, to show this. No red herring has been committed. Now, before moving on, I am going to use the Ontological argument to disprove God. The greatest thing you can conceive is not God, it's Godd, who is like God, except that Godd, by definition, disproves any other maximally great beings, such as the God in the Bible. Now, I will use my opponent's flawless logic to win the debate: (1) It is possible that Godd (a MGB) exists. (2) Godd exists in some possible world. (3) Godd exists in all possible worlds. (Refer to the definition of maximally great) (4) Therefore, Godd exists in the actual world. What can we conclude? Well, since Godd exists, the God of the Bible doesn't exist. Let's not forget that my opponent has to prove Godd to be impossible, for he has the burden of proof. Two possibilities exist from this: ai) That is not flawed logic, and my opponent's argument proving the God of the Bible has failed. Or, bi) That is flawed logic, in which case the Ontological argument has failed. Either way, my opponent has failed at: aii) Proving God to be probable bii) If ai is correct then be opponent's argument proving the God of the Bible to be real has failed. ci) If bi is correct then the Ontological argument has failed, thus disproving my opponent's claim. There are no other options. I am not sure what else to say, really. I will re-cap. 1) If the person making the assertion (Pro) has the BoP, then he has failed at premise one. If Con has the BoP, then Pro has the BoP for Godd; to show how Godd is impossible. (Godd is like God except Godd, by definition, disproves God of the Bible). 2) If the Ontological argument is correct, I have proved Godd to be real, thus proving God to be false. But. .. if the Ontological argument is correct, then my opponent has proved God to be real, but I have proved him to be false. .. and the circular reasoning of the Ontological argument goes on. It fails, because you can use it to prove AND disprove God, by stating that it is "possible" for anything to exist and that this thing that one asserts is, by definition, a MGb. Here's another one: P1: "Noodle" is a MGB that, by definition, cures all starving humans. P2: It is possible that Noodle exists. P3: If Noodle exists, he will exist in this world, as Noodle is a MGB. P4: Therefore, Noodle exists in this world. C: There are no starving humans in this world. So. .. if the Ontological argument is correct, there are no starving humans in this world. However: Fact: There are starving children in this world. C: Therefore, Noodle does not exist. But. .. this proves the Ontological argument wrong. Pro could counter that, by definition, God is the greatest thing that one can imagine. However, that is not in the definition as agreed upon (rule five) by my opponent. (He agreed by joining this debate [rule six]). So, by the definition of God as agreed upon in this debate, that counter doesn't hold water. I rest my case, and await my opponent's response. Source(s): [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...