The Ontological Argument is Sound

I have learned much. I wish we had a few more rounds and a longer post. "This failure to manage a sustained attack is itself evidence of Cons inability to refute the OA. " I am a bit insulted here, as it would seem pro seems to think that if a boxer fails to knock out by missing on his first punch that some how mean a knock out for the other guy. Pro is trying to pull a fast one, this debate is not about the ontological argument it is about is it sound? To which i have been at that target from the get go. "Con has dropped all of his arguments from the last round, as well as the round prior. " If one notes the comment section pro notices that i may have ran out of room, this is the truth. Had i had more space i could have dealt with stating that some of pro's reasoning has no rational to back it up A proposition is a declarative sentence that is either true or false. [1] this whole debate is about the proposition "The ontological argument is sound" Now pro thinks that we must look a the idea of a maximally great being first, as stated "But if God"s existence is possible then such a world isn't possible! " so here it is simply put: If the ontological was sound then it would be sound in every possible world. "The ontological argument is sound" is a proposition "A possible world is a conjunction which comprises every proposition or its contrary. " Pro wants us to accept that possible worlds that do not conform to the Ontological argument do not exist. It is this idea that causes a paradox If the proposition, "the ontological argument is unsound" can not exist then the proposition the ontological argument is sound can not either Now of course there is a third option the soundness of the ontological argument is indeterminable. Pro says it is sound, pro's problem is the only way to make line 3 work is to exclude possible worlds that conflict with OA. The Solipsistic worlds, (I noted but one) which while illogical to argue that you are the sole being is illogical (because who would you be argue with? ) reader, tell me, where did pro negate that world or did he just dismiss it as a world that cant exist? Put your self in the place of the solipsist are you convinced that your world isn't real? last time i checked while solipsism is indefensible it remains irrefutable. So pro excludes it. The soundness of the ontological argument is indeterminable. this is inline with my original stated view. "It is my position that the Ontological argument is not sound. " Not sound can mean unsound it can also mean indeterminable. The Ontological argument works only if one starts from the hypothesis that it is sound. if one starts from the null hypothesis, its soundness is indeterminable then these problems of possible worlds that the OA asserts do not exist become a problem. "So, sure, we can imagine possible worlds . .. , but are those really possible worlds or are they products of the imagination? " "I never equivocated with 'possible. ' Something is possible just if it's true in some non-actual or actual world. " "What Con mistakes is that my argument is predicated on imaginiation, and not possibility / impossibility (hence the modal logic used). Simply put, imagining something isn't the same as concieving of something. If something is concievable or coherent, then it is possible" (I am a horrible speller so i would like to thank Firefox for showing me 3 spelling errors in the last quote) the solipsistic world is conceivable and coherent. and is exactly why it is irrefutable. "But how does my knowing how my girl-friend will freely choose in an option between ice-cream and spinach, actually determine her free choice? Surely there's still a possible world in which she could have chosen otherwise," well sure but given the knowledge of the initial conditions and being all knowing you would know that possible world would not be a feasible one. The very fact that pro did not note it as a feasible world speaks volumes to this, " For I said that omnipotence doesn't include determining free choices, that would be a meaningless property to not have. " pro also said " God knows the individual essence of every possible creature so well that He knows what that creature would do in any possible combination of circumstances" I have run out of space again. Who made more convincing arguments? Do any of Pro's arguments make you think the proposition "The Ontological Argument is Sound" is more likely to be true? To evaluate this you must start from the view that it is yet to be determined as sound or unsound, whether you hold the view that it is or is not. The only argument that pro has made is the argument itself.