It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God.

What my opponent has failed to realise in the previous round is that his alteration of gaunillo's critisism doesn't attack the God being debated. The ontological argument can only be used to prove the greatest possible being, as nothing is greater than the greatest being possible. Furthermore, Con's attempt to accuse me of changing the definition of God is what he is guilty of, not me. In round 1 I specified God can be further defined for clarity, as I did in the ontological argument, by adding greatest possible being to his status. Con however, changed the definition of God to greatest thing imaginable, which I demonstrated to be fallacious. Defending the Ontological argument:To put Con's argument in a sentence, the definition of God I gave was interchangeable with another definition that could be used to prove that God as well. There are a few problems with this which I will point out:1) There is no such thing as the greatest possible thing imaginableAs everyone has different intellectual capabilities when it comes to imagination, one cannot define a greatest possible thing imaginable, neither does imagination have any impact on the actual world2) The argument becomes false under Con's definition. By changing the definition from greatest possible being, to greatest thing imaginable, Con actually causes the premises to disagree with each other and others to become false or logically unsound. The greatest possible thing imaginable doesn't actually exist, yet the argument assumes the being in question can exist. The greatest possible being can exist, but the greatest thing imaginable is a figment of imagination, and does not have existence except in the mind. Cons entire rebuttal can also be refuted like this: The greatest possible thing is chocolate. That's right, the greatest possible thing is subjective to each individuals opinion, the ontological argument cannot prove it exists, it can only be used to prove the greatest possible being.Defending the TAG argument: Con is under the impression that "There can be no logic without a place for logic to actually exist." False. This assumes firstly that logic can only exist where we as humans can percieve it, in 4 dimentional space/time. If we didn't live in space with the geometry we observe, but instead lived under different circumstances, there would be no reason why the laws of logic would suddenly cease to exist. Logic doesn't need a place to live, however it is only useful when there is someone to understand it and use it. But it is arrogant, ignorant, and self-centered to say that you have to be in the forest for the falling tree to be able to make a sound. As I stated before, if you were to go into the past, logical laws would be the same, if you were to travel 5 million light years from here, logical laws would be the same. There is no such point where you can travel that contradictions can suddenly exist.Pro also fails to understand certain implications, he argues that I, Benjamin Smith, would not be Benjamin Smith if the universe didn't exist. At first glance, this seems to present a problem for the law of identity, however, it remains that I wouldn't be Benjamin Smith only because I wouldn't exist to be me. If everything ceased to exist, the law of identity would not die with it. Consider this statement: Nothing is nothing. This statement is true regardless of the universe existing or not. Likewise with God is God, there need be no universe for statements like this to be true, except without the universe, these statements would not be statements, they would simply be logical laws and functions; transcendent logical laws and functions.Con has also failed to demonstrate why the other logical absolutes I postualted were not actually transcendent after I had established them as thus.Furthermore, con believes that there are 3 states of being. Existence, non-existence or unknown. This last one however is false. Our knowledge or understanding of the universe doesn't change anything and does not warrant a separate catergory. Either something exists or it doesn't: The law of the excluded middle, a likewise transcendent law.Defending the Kalam Cosmological argument:Con did not read my justification of premises 3 and 4 and thus attacks me for not justifing them. So lets put this into simple EnglishGod is not physical because:The universe is physical and was created by Him. God is not the universe since that is what was created, and God did not create Himself, as He would have had to exist before His existence which is a paradox.So therefore God is transcendent to the universe, he doesn't require matter to live, since He made matter.God is extremely powerful because:He made the universe from nothingGod is extremely knowledgable because:He designed the univserse from nothing (conceptualised everything that exists)God is eternal because:He isn't affected by time, he made time and existed before time existed.If the universe was created, as this argument seeks to prove, then the creator which we will label as 'God,' fits all of these criteria to be able to create the universe. We can use occam's razor to rule out anything more than this.In Con's very last paragraph, con makes a suprise attempt at a stab to revive 3 of his arguments. To demonstate what a nice guy I am, I will spend a lot more than a short paragraph further rubbishing his arguments.The blind watchmaker argument refuted:Here is how Con defended it: 'This argument applies to all God and logically suggests why God needs a creator.' Not much of a defence, but anyways. This argument does not at all show why God would need a creator. It attempts to show however, that the universe might not need one, if there were to be an infinite number of universes, then we might be in the universe that 'got it right.' Good luck with the immense BoP Con, this argument is still demonstratably false even if we were to suppose an infinite number of universes. But mindful of character limits, I won't touch on that since Con hasn't said anything about it.Argument of destruction and decay: (hehe)This argument originally said that if there was a God, there should be no destruction. I have already refuted this and Con didn't actually do much to defend it, so I'll leave it at that. The same story with his 'people are greater than God' argument.Concluding, there's not much more to say, Cons arguments have ceased to exist, I would reckon that all my arguments are still standing strong in light of a rather weak rebuttal. Since this is the last round, and Con posted his arguments in the first round, please leave the last round empty, but short conclusion is acceptable.In all, this has been a fun debate, Con was a guy I met in the youtube comments section after approaching me while I was making fun of an atheist, so the fact that we got a debate out of it left me quite rapt. Thanks for the debate.To voters, be aware that you may penalise Con for posting a defence or argument in the last round, him taking rond 1 as an argument round already violated our structure. Hail Smithis!