God probably exists. (Version 2).

It seems confusion has ensued; I will attempt to clear this up. "And I have displayed, through reasoning, God is either possible or impossible and that no one has demonstrated that God is impossible, thus, realizing that God is probably absolute. You have yet to demonstrate anything against that notion. That was my argument." If you have displayed that god in an absolute for one way of the other, you have not met your burden. Now, as for my burden, I have to refute any arguments to show how God is probable. Has this happened? No. My opponent's argument deals in absolutes. I don't even have to refute it. But I am trying to. Hopefully, with this cleared up, and the spirit of the debate still going on, we can continue. It seems my opponent has consented the debate to me "Okay, then you win that God is not probable but absolute." I understand my opponent's frustration, but I cannot change the title. This debate has been consented to Con. "Please take a modal logic course." I ask my opponent to cease his ad hominem attacks. Frustration? Fine. But ad homs? Not acceptable. "This is a modal logic fact: everything is possible unless contradictory." I will accept this, for the sake of argument. "You have yet to demonstrate that God is impossible." Allow me to do so now. Contention 3: The Omniscient Changes the Future A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and free-willed is impossible. Contention 4: God is not just, and thus impossible. God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in Hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible. Thus, the God of the Bible does not exist. Contention 5: Belief more important than action. It is clear from the Bible that it matters not what you have done - not how loving, kind, compassionate you are. The God of the Bible makes it clear that you have two options: a) Worship me or b) Burn forever in Hell. Anyone who lived before Jesus? They're in Hell. The Amazonian tribesman? They're in Hell. Punishing someone for rules and laws that: a) They've never even heard of b) Are not necessary to live a satisfactory life and c) They have no reason to have heard of them Is not just. In most any court of law (in a first world country), people will be punished on their actions, not their beliefs. Why? Because it's not just and subjective depending on the belief(s) of the person(s). Not just. Thus, the God of the Bible is impossible. Now, as for my version of the Ontological argument. If we say Godd is like God in every way. There is no reason to reject Godd over God (without rejecting God, too) because God's attributes are accepted into the Ontological argument. Actually, we need not add any more, because the God of the Bible is the only God. So one of God's attributes is being unique. Hence: Godd is unique. That's all very fine and good, but we must prove them. Easy! Use the Ontological argument. (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) (C1) Therefore, Godd exists in the actual world. (C2) Since Godd is, by definition, unique, God does not exist in the actual world. Now, for my opponent's version. (1) A maximally great being is possible. (God) (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) (C) God exists in the actual world. (C2) God is unique, by definition, therefore Godd does not exist. What have we concluded? That either: Godd and God are impossible because they contradict each other, by definition or The Ontological argument doesn't work when one applies it to another MGB. "Why would something be in any way greater for having an extra letter?" 1) The extra letter is not the point; the point is that Godd is unique (like God) by definition to this world. 2) You have the burden to prove this God impossible. Remember, this God (called Godd) is exactly like God. Godd is unique, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. My opponent (as he has been stressing) has the burden of proof to prove Godd to be impossible. Of course, if one were to say that: Godd is impossible because of God. Then that's begging the question. "You are also verging on Gaunilo's objection, which has been rebutted multiple times as well." Well...no, because his objection was something that was different from God. Godd is like Godd in every attribute, remember. My opponent has used a red herring fallacy. Prove Godd to be impossible without begging the question. (Remember, he's exactly like God, and God is exactly like Godd). I await my opponent's response(s)!