The Ontological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

Since this is my last round per Con's rules, I do want to take a moment to thank him for his time. Unfortunately, we didn't get to dive into anything of interest and seem to have gotten bogged down in technicalities. I must admit, having read his previous debate on this subject, I was looking forward to more stimulating discourse.It is Possible That God ExistsCon says I still have not supported this premise because I have not proven that God is actually metaphysically possible. I find this line of reasoning bizarre to say the least. God is either metaphysically possible or he is not. That is all this premise is after. If he is metaphysically possible in at least one world, then this premise holds. What does the term "actually" even add to this discussion? If something is metaphysically possible in the modal sense, then actually is metaphysically possible in the modal sense. He seems to be speaking in tautologies.If I have not met his burden of possibility, then fault lies with him for not explaining it more clearly. It seems as though he is obfuscating the intentions of this premise for no real purpose and without good reason. I accepted the distinction of metaphysical possibility and showed that it was necessarily true in my previous round, then he adds actual metaphysical possibility leaving me only my last round to decipher his meanings. I must object, therefore, to his line of reasoning. It is a red herring.He goes on to say that it is indeed my burden to loop through all possible objections to the coherency of the definition of God above. This is frankly absurd in a debate format limited to 8000 characters. There could be any number of things—both realized and unknown—that contradict the possibility of God. It would be impractical for me to iterate through them here. I invited my opponent to engage me on this point and he simply says he doesn't have to. This is begging the question. I asserted and defended the first premise so employing ipse dixit is insufficient rebuttal.Lastly my opponent accuses me of arguing from ignorance. This is not the case at all. I am not relying on the coherency of God because there is lack of evidence for it. Rather, I am relying on the coherency of the terms themselves. There is nothing inherently contradictory with the definition of God given the fact that (a) the terms are themselves coherent by virtue of the presumption that language is coherent and (b) the terms are not in contradiction. This is further affirmed by our ability to intuit the concept of God. We cannot, on the other hand, intuit a married bachelor.Note that I wasn't asking him to prove the argument false or even prove this premise false. I was asking him to offer rebuttal to it. I was expecting him to offer at least one counterexample that would show this premise impossible. In fact, that is how most debates engage this topic. If God is not possible, then Con should have offered a reason why. Con even did this in his last debate. Instead, he just repeats himself over and over that I haven't done enough. I think I have sufficiently explained at this point why his assertion is unreasonable.ConclusionIn the final analysis we are left with a contention that reeks of question begging on the part of my opponent. His tactic has been to simply say I haven't done enough and leave it at that, which I find a bit impolite since he started this debate. Con is insisting that he wins so long as I am unable to conceive of all possible contentions. This not only makes discourse nearly impossible on this subject, it is also beyond the scope of modal logic. Modal logic is meant to study the metaphysical without having to identify and observe every iteration of it.Since I do not get the last word in this debate that Con started, I must leave it into the hands of the readers. I showed that metaphysical possibility was necessary given the qualities of a maximal great being. This is sufficient to show the first premise. Sadly, if Con finally does offer a fresh refutation in the final round, I will be unable to respond to it.Thank you readers and Rational_Thinker9119 for your time and thoughtful consideration.