The modal ontological argument is not sound

Ahhhh, the debate is really heating up now... sweet!Counter-argument rebuttalCon seems to be disagreeing with P2 and P3. P2 and P3 state: “A world without God (a maximally great being) is a world without logical contradictions.” and “There is a possible world in which God does not exist.” Cons says the following about them: “You have to show that there is some logical state of affairs that a MGB could not exist in.” I think con is confused about the definition of possible here. Anything is possible as long as it does not have any logical contradictions. A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and it's denial not-S. [1] A logical contradiction is when you say something like “a round square”. There not being a maximally great being, is not a logical contradiction. There could be a possible world where 1 being is omnipotent, while another is perfectly moral. So in that possible world, no maximally great being could exist, because 2 of the properties required, are in 2 different beings. Parody arguments rebuttal Metal toothpickCon gave an argument for why my metal toothpick cannot exist in all possible worlds. He says: “Metal doesn’t exist in all possible worlds. There is a possible world where metal doesn’t exist. The metal toothpick cannot exist in that possible world, because it’s made of metal, and metal doesn’t exist. It would be logically impossible for a metal toothpick to exist in a possible world that contains no metal. Therefore, there is a possible world where the existence of a metal toothpick is not logically possible.”Yep, and that is why it’s a parody argument! There is a possible world where metal does not exist, so the metal toothpick can’t exist in every possible world. Now if you read my counter-argument from above again, you can see that it is the same objection, as this objection here. I also object to the premise that a MGB exists in every possible world by showing that there are possible worlds where it does not exist. And that is why these parody arguments are possible: they abuse the false logic used in the modal ontological argument. The only reason why con felt comfortable debunking this argument is because the argument used a thing (a toothpick) instead of a being (God for example). Because a thing is being used, the false logic was easy to spot. Now let me give another parody which uses a being instead of a thing. The “Lillian Cane Wraig”= an invisible ghost, which if it exists in one possible world, exists in all possible worlds. P(1): It is possible that Lillian Cane Wraig exists. P(2): If it is possible that Lillian Cane Wraig exists, then Lillian Cane Wraig exists in some possible worlds. P(3): If Lillian Cane Wraig exists in some possible worlds, then Lillian Cane Wraig exists in all possible worlds. P(4): If Lillian Cane Wraig exists in all possible worlds, then Lillian Cane Wraig exists in the actual world. P(5): If Lillian Cane Wraig exists in the actual world, then Lillian Cane Wraig exists. C(1): Therefore, Lillian Cane Wraig exists. Justification:P(1): A reasonable assumption, like premise 1 from the MOA (I debunk the quote from Leibz further in my post, so they are, again, both assumptions). P(3): Definition of Lillian Cane Wraig. Great Demon Con says: “A maximally great being must also have all great-making properties to their maximal extent. Great-making properties are things like goodness and perfection. A maximally evil demon would be the complete opposite. It would be maximally without good. It logically follows that the demon does not have all great making properties to their maximal extent. Therefore, it cannot be maximally great. The parody arguments that Pro gives are based on a misunderstanding of what it means to be maximally great. I’ve demonstrated that the ontological argument cannot be used to show that a metal toothpick and demons also exist. The parody is a failure.”Yes, I agree with Con that a maximally great demon is not maximally great, that’s not what I was arguing (the name “maximally great demon” is just a name, not implying that it is a MGB). Con seems to think that the argument can only work for a maximally great being. This is not true actually. The only property a being has to have for the argument to work, is that it needs to be necessary(= if it exists in one world, then it exists in all possible worlds). So, is a maximally great demon (a demon which contains all evil making properties to maximum value) a necessary being? Yes, it is! I explained why that is the case in my first post, so I will just quote it: “Surely, a being which is evil in all worlds, is more evil than a being which is evil in only a couple possible worlds. Therefore, it follows from the definition of the maximally great demon, that it exists in all possible worlds.” While I’m at it, I will also present an argument for premise 1 of my maximally great demon parody. The premise: It is possible that a maximally great demon exists. Justification: Because we can not analyze maximal evilness, there is no way for us to argue that all evilness cannot exist in a being to their maximal extent. This allows a MGD(maximally great demon) to exist in at least one possible world. Premise 1 rebuttal The defense of Con is a quote from Gottfried Leibniz, which he formulates like this: “Because we can not analyze perfection, there is no way for us to argue that all perfections cannot exist in a being to their maximal extent. This allows a MGB to exist in at least one possible world.” I argued that this is an argument from ignorance, which Con disputed. But lets look at it again, an argument from ignorance is when you claim that because there is no evidence to contradict a premise, the premise must be true. So what is the premise here? The premise is: “It is possible that a MGB exists.” What is the argument given? We can’t analyze perfection, therefore there is no way for us to argue that a MGB is an impossibility, therefore a MGB is possible. The argument says that since we can’t proof that a MGB is impossible, that it therefore follows that it is possible. This is the definition of an argument from ignorance. You can’t give a better example for an argument from ignorance than this one! I also have another objection to the argument. “Because we can not analyze perfection, there is no way for us to argue that all perfections cannot exist in a being to their maximal extent. This allows a MGB to exist in at least one possible world.” Con states that we can’t analyze perfection. He has failed to give any justification for this.I, myself, believe that we can find and analyze perfection. We can look at a chess position and find and analyze the perfect move. So when something has certain rules, like a chess game, it is possible to find and analyze the perfect move. Our universe is governed by rules too. We call them the laws of nature. So why should it not be possible for us to find and analyze perfection then? I have no idea.. Now that I debunked Con’s argument, we are left with no justification for the first premise of the MOA. Conclusion: Counter-argument: I debunked Con’s criticism and also gave an argument which justifies my second premise. Thus, according to the conclusion of my argument which follows from my premises, the MOA is not sound. My opponent has to debunk my argument for premise 2 and 3, if he wants to show that this counter-argument is not sound (since he agreed with all other premises).Parodies: I dropped the toothpick parody, since the mistake was easily spotted. I debunked the criticism that was given to the great demon parody and I also added another parody argument. Due to the many possible parody arguments, it follows that the MOA is not sound.Premise 1: I debunked con’s argument for why a MGB possibly exists. So, we are left with no reason to think that premise 1 is true. Therefore, the MOA is not sound. [1]: http://www.csus.edu...