It is Logically Impossible that a Maximally Great Being Exists.

Before beginning, it's important to take a close look at the resolution: It is logically impossible that a maximally great being exists. Since my opponent has accepted the BoP, it is therefore assumed that a maximally great being (MGB) is logically possible, until such time that it is shown to be impossible. As Pro stated in round one, I have the burden of the rejoinder (I must find flaws in Pro's argument), however the assumption is that I am correct, and therefore I stand to win, until shown otherwise. Also note that we are speaking in terms of possibility, not probability. Therefore, if I can establish even one single way in which a MGB can be logically possible, I win this debate. Let's look at what Pro's argument boils down to:Pro's ArgumentsPro has given only 1 argument for why a MGB cannot exist. It is, essentially, that so long as we can conceive of something 1 quantitative value point greater than the MGB, we can conceive of a being greater than the MGB, which means it can't exist. Pro asserts that his syllogism is logically valid, but I'm afraid there are numerous issues with it. Firstly, let's simplify Pro's argument:-P1: There is a limited amount of stuff in the universe-P2: If there is a limited amount of stuff, then the creator must only be able to create a limited amount of stuff-P3: We can always think of something capable of creating 1 more thing-C: There can be no MGB1) First problem, Pro is assuming that there is a limited amount of stuff (stars) in the universe. We don't know this to be the case. It is very much possible that the Universe is infinite:"Since we cannot observe space beyond the limitations of light (or any electromagnetic radiation), it is uncertain whether the size of the Universe is finite or infinite. " [1]For Pro to say that "The idea of an infinite number of stars existing in the galaxy at any given time is an incoherent one. " is a base-less assertion. While I can't say for sure the the Universe IS infinite, I don't have to. I need only to establish the logical possibility to fulfil my BoP, and since there exists the possibility that the universe is infinite, this point stands in favour of Con.2) The second problem Pro has made is a logical fallacy where he states that a finite number of existing stars suggests a finite number of potential stars:"P3. If there must exist a finite number of stars in the galaxy at any given time, then there must be a finite number of stars that a maximally great being could create. "This is an unwarranted assumption. Firstly, there very well may be an infinite amount of stars, but even if there isn't, the amount of stars that currently exists says nothing about how many stars the MGB could potentially create. It could very well be capable of creating an infinite amount of stars, but not willing. So long as this possibility exists, this point also stands in favour of Con.3) Pro's third issue is stating that we can always conceive of a being capable of creating 1 more thing, therefore a MGB is impossible. As laid out in R1, the MGB is, by definition, omnipotent -- meaning it has infinite power [2]. So no, we cannot conceive of something capable of creating more stars, because this being is, by definition, capable of creating an infinite amount of stars if it chose to. This premise is in direct contradiction to the pre-agreed upon definitions Pro laid out in R1 and therefore voids Pro's argument.4) This argument also has an internal problem. Pro sets out to establish that there is a finite amount of potential stars that can be created. If this is true, then we cannot conceive of a being capable of creating more stars that the "MGB" in question, as this would violate the conclusions his previous premises were meant to establish. Pro's argument is self-contradictory. If it is possible for this supposed limit to be surpassed, then Pro has logically established the possibility of a maximally great being, thereby defeating his own position. ConclusionPro's argument rests on 3 unsupported assumptions (fallacies) to make his case. Firstly, his argument assumes a finite Universe. Secondly, his argument assumes the amount of stars in the Galaxy in any way represents the potential amount of stars the MGB can create. Thirdly, his argument assumes that you can conceive of a being more powerful than an omnipotent being, which is tautologically impossible. Finally, Pro's argument contradicts itself by both attempting to establish a limit on the amount of potential stars that can be created, and by attempting to establish the logical possibility of a being capable of surpassing this limit. Therefore, the logical possibility for a MGB remains. The resolution is negated. Vote Con! Sources1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...