It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God.

To sum up: Con changed the definition of God while there was clearly only one he could use God: the creator of the universe. Con was talking about Gaunilos island. Cons God has possible existence while mine has necescary existence, even though we used the same way prove that god has necessary existence. Con was telling that if you are correct you are wrong. Con didn't agree with the excluded middle law. Con says God is God, and something else. Con says why logical absolutes depend on universe, but it is not worth telling why it is untrue. First of all Pro also changed the definition from God: creator of the universe to God: the greatest being possible. I explained why this wouldn't work if Pro is trying to defend God the creator of the universe definition.(But it wasn't worth noticing I guess.) You started arguing about a different definition. Human minds don't change anything in reality, so does our definitions.(Defenition doesn't represent the reality they represent our understanding.) 1. The new definition seeks to disprove the old definition.(God in the mind is greater than in reality, where it's just a product of imagination therefore not actually real in reality.) It proves that the God isn't real in reality while the other proves that God is real in reality.( It is the opposite. And again as I explayned my point had nothing to do with gaunilos islands argument, I just modified the idea of it.) God is the greatest possible being imaginable. By using this definition I made it true everywhere, just as did the original definition, I applied the same logic. If you would have read my argument to the end, maybe you would have noticed that I explain how this God neccessarily exists. Since I disproved (Just the same way "you" proved) the existance of god in reality. My argument still stands. It is just as valid as the original one. This definition allows God to exists neccessarily, since he is the greatest possible thing imaginable 'if God (defined as the greatest possible being imaginable) exists he would (by definition) have the greatest possible form of existence (which is NECESSARY existence). Evidential justification: Again, God is defined as the greatest possible being imaginable. If it is possible to imagine a being, it cannot be impossible. The being was perfect imagination to an extent that is not possible, it would not be the greatest possible being imaginable. Given its coherent meaning then, it would be irrational to claim that the greatest possible being imaginable cannot possibly exist(since imaginable not in reality).' This is taken from the original website, I just added imaginable and it is still as true as it was before. So nothing is wrong with my argument, it tries to disprove the existence of god in reality the same way "you" try to prove it. It is exactly as valid as the original argument. This God has nessecary existence and that is proved the same way the old definitions Gods nessecary existance is proven. How can it not be he greatest possible being imaginabe?(See point 7. from preavious round.) This case is just as likely true as the case of God existing in reality since I prove it the same way. 2. 1. "The law of identity which states that A=A does not require matter or anything physical to exist." 2. "The existence of the universe cannot explain the existence of something purely conceptual that doesn't require the universe to exist in order to exist.' 2.1 The law of identity just says that A=A and A doesn't equal B. 2.1 I just explained that it can. You din't tell me any absolute that doesn't depend on the universe we live in, its laws, space and time.( My name is Benjamin Smith, you wouldn't be able to conclude that without this universe and its laws because then you yourself wouldn't exist, nothing would exist. If there is NOTHING than that nothing also includes the absolutes, since there is exactly nothing.) There can be no logic without a place for logic to actually exist. I explained that in the previous round. However Pro completely ignores this point. I expected Pro not accepting the first part of the argument so there was a second part written independent(the part Pro ignores) of the first one, Pro is talking only about the first part. My second point still stands. I didn't claim that there is only one logical absolute I said I can think of only one. You can't be 100% sure of anything, example: I'm sure I can't be sure of anything. How can I be sure that I can't be sure, because I can't be sure if its true or false, therefore I can't be 100% sure, even though it is true or false. This absolute (it also predicts itself being untrue and that isn't against what it is saying, so it's valid) means that I can't be sure what is and what is not. I know that it is true or false, but I don't know what is true or false. Your name is Benjamin Smith. Your name isn't Benjamin Smith. I know that one of those statements are true, but I don't know which one. Another example: There are two levers, one can be pulled, the other can't. Which one can be pulled? You can't be totally sure witch one can be pulled, but you know that one can be and the other can not. I exist. I don't exist. Again, I know that one of those are true, but I don't know which one. Even if you disprove this point(you haven't done that) the other one stands. If ,in fact, if there is only a universe required to have logical absolutes(Pro didn't even tell me an example) than logical absolutes can do perfectly fine without God. If this is true a God isn't necessary it would just complicate everything. You don't need annoying, loud neighbours to go to sleep you can do perfectly fine without them. So therefore it would be illogical to suppose the existence of God just because of something he isn't even required for.(In the TAG case.) Cosmological argument. The cause of the universe couldn't have been physical, this cause is also timeless, this is how far Pro explains why that is very clearly. Therefore I agree with these two statements. Then Pro basically says this: That cause had to be transcendent, powerful and knowledgable enough to create a universe. Pro fails to explain why it is so. This is because Pro doesn't know why God has to be transcendent, powerful and knowledgable. He gives no reason and it seems like he can't even think of a reason why the cause of the universe requires these properties. As I explained Pro and me too can't know anyhting beond the first moment of the universe. before that moment comes assumptions. You try to escape trought the net by making assumptions you can't back up. I won't make blind guesses about anything before the first moment of universe. In this argument Pro is the one making the ideas. I am saying why he shouldn't. Pro doesn't know the cause Pro can only guess what it is. Back to the Blind watchmaker argument. This argument applies to all God and logically suggests why God needs a creator(Dissmised because it's 'irrelevant' to debate.) Destruction and decay argument says what would be expeted if universe had a designer. People are greater than God, I never mentioned such a thing. I was trying to say that people and not God moved the OUR world forward so we could live where we live. Arguments 3. 4. 5. are for an different debate I thought you were going to fight for a crhristian God(God represented by bible) as I had explained. Sources: http://www.angelfire.com... http://carm.org... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...