God's Existence (Christian)

Thanks for the reply con. Defense of the Ontological ArgumentHere is my defense of the ontological argument. Just a few things before I go any further, Con’s subtle bashing on my grammar made me little confused. Although I appreciate Con pointing my grammar to improve later, I would like to point out that those were phrases, not sentences, summarized from a few chapters of the Ontological Argument. Furthermore, I will elaborate the fact how every single of those arguments were not fallacies and how “absurdity” in my opponent’s point of view does not make it a fallacy. R.1 Defense of Anselm IBelow quoting my argument of Anselm's logic, my opponent states“There are flaws with this argument of “defining” God into existence. This argument makes the unsubstantiated assumption that things that exist are better than things that don’t exist. That’s a strange way to look at existence, are flying pigs more flawed than pigs?I fail to see how this, in any way, is a rebuttal. My opponent declares the entire argument as “strange” and then leaves off with a question. Perhaps we will hear in the next round, on why it is strange. Here is why existence is greater than non existence. If we pick a child that loves its mother, the child can only love its mother if it exists. Same with any other trait. Therefore, the existing child is greater because it can possess that trait. Or, to answer my opponent’s question, flying pigs are more flawed than pigs because they do not exist, and the idea that they do exist is flawed. R.1 Defense of Anselm IINext lets look at my opponent’s reply substituting god with donut. “By definition, this donut is an object than which none greater can be imagined.”Well, that argument is clearly false since a donut is not a supreme being. Yes, substituting god with anything will make the Anselm’s argument false, only because you cannot substitute anything else besides a supreme being in the first place! My opponent argument makes no sense because he is substituting an object that is not a supreme being, since the argument is solely in regards to a supreme being!R.2 Defense of Mulla Sadra My opponent states that the argument is absurd since it defines existence as a property of god. The only problem is that he has not exactly told us why. Maybe we will hear this is in the next round. “So what it amounts to is: If God existed, and thus had the properties described in his definition, he exists!”I found my opponent very confusing since he is calling something that should be true, absurd. Let’s say that we have an item, Let’s call it item “A”. In order for item A to exist, it must have the properties X,Y,and Z. Now, lets say that item A, by definition possess the properties X,Y, and Z. Therefore, item A must exist since it posses the properties X,Y, and Z by definition alone. The same concept is with god if we take perfection and existence into play. R.3 Defense of William Lane Craig and Alan PlantingMy opponent briefly stated “The problem is; your conception of actual reality is only a conception, not reality itself. You also make the unsupported assumption that multiple realities exist.”I believe that my opponent may have misinterpreted that argument. The point that I am trying to convey is, if god exists, then he exists in some possible place. Such as a planet or a part of the universe, etc. If god exists in a possible place, then he exists in all those possible places. If he exists in all the possible places, then he exists in reality, because reality is possible and within possibility. Final remarksAlthough I apologize for posting rebuttals in the second round, I really hope my opponent would read them this time and reply to them. My opponent claims that he defeated all my arguments, however I do not see how. Many of the times he called them absurd, therefore fallacy which does not exactly make much sense. Absurdity in my opponent’s point of view, does not exactly mean fallacy. Furthermore, he calls the arguments absurd for the pure reason of they appeared to be this way.