God does not exist.

Ave! I wish to thank KingDebater for posting his interesting arguments against the existence of god. In this round, I will support the arguments that I have given, and rebut my opponents.The Argument from QuantityIt may interest the audience to know that I'm actually the person who came up with the Argument from Quantity. It was supposed to be used in a debate with KeytarHero about the ontological argument. It failed, and I recognize it as fallacious. It's surprising to me that somebody would still use it.Imagine an elevator with a maximum capacity of two thousand pounds. It can hold two thousand pounds of people without breaking. Of course, you could conceive of that elevator holding two thousand and one pounds, and that's what the AFQ argues about god. The problem is, once it's established the maximum capacity is two thousand pounds, there is no sense in conceiving of that elevator holding anything me.The fact that you can conceive of larger amounts of greatness does not mean that larger amounts of greatness can actually be possessed in practice. This is why the AFQ fails miserably. If the maximal greatness is 700, then I grant my opponent that could you think of 701 greatness. But, this does not mean that 701 greatness is something a being can actually posses. Until King connects conception with practice, this argument cannot stand.Ultimately, what I"m putting forward is what I want to call the ""Theory-Practice"" distinction. This distinction is the axiom that ""The ability to conceive of something does not mean it can be done in practice"". This axiom, if it stands by the end of the debate, would demolish the AFQ.Contingency ArgumentThis argument isn't about fine-tuning. It's about why the universe exists. If I had made the fine-tuning argument, then I would have to show that the universe could not have been how it was by chance. King's objection about chance simply isn't relevant here.Why does god have to be maximally great? This is a silly question. King posted a definition of god in the first round, which defined him as 'A maximally great being who created the universe'. God is, by definition, maximally great!Moral ArgumentThe term 'moral content' does not nessecarily mean the action is morally good. It simply means that the action can be thought of in terms of right and wrong. If I punch somebody in the face, that action has moral content. We can think of it as right or wrong. King seems to think that giving moral content to an action also means that you're calling it moral. That's not true at all.King also argues that there is moral conflict over issues. Group X views A as moral, and Group Y views A as immoral, so the first premise must be false on his view. Like I pointed out in the last debate, all this observation does is support the premise.'Yes, a person could consider an action done to another person to be moral, and another person could consider it to be immoral. The premise of the argument simply states that the action has moral content. In other words, it can be thought of as being moral or immoral, and not amoral. When Pro argues that people can think of that actions morality in different ways, all he does is affirm the premise to be true, not refute it. Far from being a rebuttal of the first premise, Pro has unknowingly supported it.''Things are moral because god commands them, but since god's commands come from his nature, he cannot change them. If he calls X immoral, he has done so because his own morally perfect nature says so. If you took away god's morally perfect nature, then he wouldn't be god. Therefore, god's commands cannot change, because his nature cannot change.Ontological ArgumentModal logic doesn't talk about the word 'great' as its usually used. It doesn't mean that a being is greater than another being in the same way that someone thinks a song is better than another song. The word 'great' just an arbitrary word to describe whether or not something can exist, what possible worlds it exists in, etc.If X can exist in two possible worlds, and Y can exist in all possible worlds, then modal logic would call Y 'greater' than X. It does not mean greater in the context I mentioned earlier. It just means that it exists more.Attributes ArgumentThis argument has no bearing on the existence of god. Note the conclusion of the argument, which states that the term "god" is meaningless. It doesn"t follow from this that god doesn"t exist. It"s just a semantic argument about the definition of the word "god".I consider it very silly to enter a debate about the existence of god where the term "god" has already been defined, and then argue that there is no meaningful definition of god. King and I, by entering this debate, have already agreed on a definition of god. If he wants to debate whether there can be a definition of god that makes sense, then that"s a separate debate. For this one, we"ve already agreed on what god is.It"s also clear that if my arguments in this debate stand, we know a lot of first attributes about god. God would have caused the universe to exist. That's a statement about the effects that god has on the things around it, fulfilling King's standard of a primary attribute. From that, P3 is false.There's also no reason to accept his standard of what a meaningful term is. King, by way of bare assertion, argues that a term lacking A, B, and C is meaningless. However, he fails to give us any reason to believe that's true. He just lays down his standards and expects us to accept them as valid.Vale!