It is Logically Impossible that a Maximally Great Being Exists.

Let's dive right in.Pro opens by claiming I didn't present any issues with the validity of his argument. This is bizarre, as my "point 4" argument clearly demonstrates a logical inconsistency within his syllogism. Even if Pro disagrees that my argument points out a flaw in his argument, it clearly is an attack on his argument's validity and internal consistency rather than its truth value.Pro continues by arguing for his argument's validity. Let's get one thing clear. This debate's resolution is NOT "This argument is valid", the resolution clearly states "It is Logically Impossible that a Maximally Great Being Exists." Given this resolution, the truth-value of his argument's premises must be taken into account. If his argument fails to match up with reality, then his argument fails to establish the logical impossibility for a MGB. Pro takes issue with my use of the word "Universe" instead of "galaxy". This is a pointless distinction. The argument has to do with the ability to create stars, and since theirs no objective "boundary" to how big a galaxy can theoretically be, you can keep adding "stars" to the galaxy until it's scope matches the universe. Therefore, if the Universe is infinite, and the MGB's capacity to create stars is infinite, then the amount of stars that can potential be in our galaxy is also infinite.Pro takes issue with my usage of the word "is" instead of "must be". This is a particularly petty semantical argument, especially considering he doesn't go into detail on why this is a problem. If there "must be" a necessary limit to the number of stars in the universe, then there also "is" a necessary limit to the amount of stars in the universe.Now that we have this out of the way, let's get into the actual arguments: Objection 1:The crux of Pro's defence is that there is a finite number of stars in our galaxy. This is irrelevant to my objection. Our galaxy does not represent the entire Universe. We know there are around 100 billion stars in our galaxy, but we don't know how many stars are in the entire Universe. Because the universe is only around 14 billion years old, we can only see objects 14 billion lightyears away (observable universe), but we also know that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light [1]. Even though there is a finite number of stars in our galaxy, that says nothing about the amount of stars there are in reality, and if the potential exists for an infinite amount of stars in our Universe, then we must also agree that the potential for a MGB exists.Pro then attempts to discredit the possibility of an actual infinity. Firstly, it must be made clear that the existence of actual infinities has no bearing on potential infinities. In other words, a MGB can have the power needed to create stars an infinite amount of times (potential) without actually having to create an infinite amount of stars (actual), so it is fallacious to argue that there cannot be a MGB simply because there are no observable infinities. Therefore, even if Pro's following argument is sound, it still fails to fulfill his BoP. Let's begin.Pro argues that actual infinities are impossible because infinity violates the law of identity, pointing out that ∞+1 still equals infinity. This does not violate the law of identity, because by definition infinity is never ending. By definition, infinity can encompass all numbers and still be infinity. It's important to note that this means Pro is making a mathematical error. Infinity is not a number, it's a concept, in much the same way "blue" is a concept [3][2]. In essence, pro's argument is the same as saying "blue can't exist, because blue+1=blue". Obviously this is nonsense, and therefore this argument is moot. Pro also presents a video on Hilbert's Hotel, however he does not explain its relevance to his argument within the debate itself and so this must be rejected as evidence for his case. I could link a hundred videos arguing that the Universe is infinite, but unless I actually explain their significance, they cannot be considered an argument for my position. In the same way, Pro must actually make the case he's presenting in order for it to be considered one of his arguments, and since he cannot make new arguments in the last round, he has lost this point.To briefly make the case for infinity, Pro neglects the possibility of different cardinalities of infinity. That is to say, some infinities are larger than others [3]. M-theory is one such theory that utilizes different cardinalities of infinity. M-Theory posits the existence of 10 spatial dimensions +1 time dimension [4]. Each time we go up 1 spatial dimension, we have opened up the door to a potentially infinite amount of adjacent membranes in the dimension below. There's no experimental evidence backing up this theory, but since my opponent has the BoP I don't need any. All I need is for this theory to be logically consistent to establish the possibility of it being true, and since this is the case, modern theoretical physics successfully establishes the logical possibility of infinities.Objection 2:This is pretty much the same defence as before, so my response is the same. Having an infinite amount of power does not necessarily mean using an infinite amount of power. We can't determine how powerful this creator is simply by looking at the power he has chosen to spend thus far. Therefore, to argue that a MGB cannot exist because there is only a limited number of stars in our Galaxy is fallacious and, frankly, absurd.Pro then presents a new syllogism:P1. A MGB could not do something that is logically impossible.P2. An infinite amount of stuff cannot exist.C. Therefore, a MGB could not cause an infinite amount of stuff to exist.This argument is a non-sequitur. Even if it is true that an infinite amount of stuff can't exist (which Pro has so far failed to establish), this in no way shows that a MGB is logically impossible. All this argues is that a MGB can't utilize an infinite amount of power at once in our universe without violating the laws he created this universe to have. This says nothing about his actual existence.Objection 3Pro says that omnipotence cannot = infinite power because we agreed that a MGB must be constrained by the limitations of logic. First, Pro gave no definition of 'omnipotence' in round 1, therefore the default assumption is based on the dictionary definition. I defined this term last round, so for Pro to attempt to re-define "omnipotence" ex-post-facto is a semantics argument and in violation of his own rules. Furthermore, Pro has yet to establish that omnipotence is logically impossible. It is entirely possible that the Universe is infinite, therefore it is possible that there are an infinite amount of stars. Even if this is not the case, it is still possible that a MGB has the power needed to create an infinite amount of stars, but simply doesn't. Objection 4Pro doesn't actually bring up my objection once here. He merely asserts that I'm misunderstanding his argument and leaves it at that. He has failed to even acknowledge, let alone refute, my objection -- and since new argument aren't allowed next round, I'll take this as a conceded point.ConclusionPro claims my arguments stem from a misunderstanding of his argument, but upon even brief investigation, it is readily apparent that my objections were spot-on, as Pro's defence amounts to little more than re-asserting his original argument, rather than actually countering my objections. Pro has failed to establish the impossibility of both actual and potential infinites, therefore he has also failed to logically prove that a MGB is impossible. As such, his BoP is unfulfilled. The resolution is negated.Vote ConSources1. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... 2. http://scienceblogs.com... 3. http://www.youtube.com... [video] 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...