The Modal Ontological Argument for God is Logically Sound

Rebuttal to refutation of P1 It appears my opponent has misunderstood my resolution. I stated that modal logic dealt with what was logically possible; not physically possible. If the vegan doesn’t exist physically in this world, and such a vegan seems possible, he is logically possible in this world and may physically exist in another. So in other words, he exists in our world, just not physically; and likely physically exists in another world. We are talking about a greatest conceivable being that would exist necessarily. Why? Because if it were a greatest possible being, it would necessarily exist by definition. Necessary existence is not a predicate to anything less than a maximally great being. My opponent has not demonstrated otherwise. He has simply stated that existence is not a predicate and applied that logic to all and any kind of being. Therefore, my opponent’s argument here would fall apart. Rebuttal to the Reverse MOA The Reverse MOA is still not well explained by my opponent. I will state this once again; we are talking about a being that would be separate from its creation. In my last argument, I asked my opponent to clarify what category of beings he’s talking about when he says it is possible that no omniscient beings exist, etc. He is making the assumption that since it is possible there is a world where no omniscient being exists, etc. that it would be a world where God doesn’t exist, either. But my opponent is trying to lump all beings into one category instead ofclarifying what kind of being he’s talking about. Logically possible physical beings and a metaphysical maximally great being cannot be lumped into the same category if the being would, by definition, exist apart from it’s creation. He has not done this yet, so there is no solid reason to accept (ii) over (i). And by the method of Rule of Inference known as Modus Tollens, if we do not accept (ii), then (i) becomes the only plausible outcome. Modus Tollens is a valid ruleand also has yet to be proven unsound.(1) Therefore, my opponent’s argument hasbeen debunked. Rebuttal to MAE This follows logically straight from my rebuttal of the Reverse MOA in this round.If we accept that it's possible a greatest possible being exists, then following from the whole MOA, the being exists and gratuitous suffering is an incoherency. “In conclusion, I'd like to end with a quote from St. Augustine... 'Si comprehendis, non est Deus.' [1] Which I translate as... 'If you understand it, it is not God.' So it seems entirely implausible to suggest that God, a maximally great being who is omniscient, omnipotent, etc. is conceivable, since such a thing is just beyond our comprehension. That puts a damper on my opponent's case.” Human understanding is the only tool we have of which to come to knowledge at all. Myopponent hasn’t demonstrated why a being would be inconceivable or beyondcomprehension indefinitely. Therefore, this doesn’t put a damper on my case. This has been a well-fought and interesting debate and I look forward to hearing Con’sfinal argument! Lol it's 1:00 in the morning and I just got finished typing this. I'm really going to need a break from long debates after this one as well. Anyway, onto Con! Source(s) (1)http://www.philosophy-index.com...