God exits

I am not even sure if my opponent is being frivolous in this debate or if this is how he usually acts. However,for the sake of this debate, I shall ignore his flawed definitions of "Intelligent" and "Stupid".I feel no use to include any further arguments that supports my position. The debate was based on a parody of the ontological argument argument and I shall focus on this particular argument in order to prove an omnipotent being's existence.The ontological argumentthe ontolgoical argument is pretty stupid, almost all philoshers agree on this point. no one even takes it sersiously anymore. for isntance here is a quote from dawkins: the ontolgical argument is "dialectical prestidigitation" meaning its compete horse-crap. but i will refute it anyway.My opponent further demonstrates flawed logic. Seriously, where do you bring that stuff from? I will assume you mean the academia standards for a philosopher, since it can be argued that everyone is a philosopher. Proving the claim that almost all philosophers agree to your opinion of the ontological argument is impossible. Even when assuming all philosophers asked will answer truthfully, which changes the claim to "Almost all philosophers claim to agree to this point", we will need to ask almost all philosophers to prove this claim.I am not really sure what is my opponent's point, even if we assume his claim is true. What does this have to do with the validity of my argument if no argument is provided?My opponent also seem to want to awaken my inner Dawkinphobia by resorting to an argument from authority. Basically, if Dawkins says it, then it must be true. http://www.andyramblings.co.uk...; width="433" height="203" />1- If there is a chance for God's existence, he must exist. (Reefer to the ontological argument)2- Dawkins admits there is a chance for God's existence. (1)3- God exists.Therefore, I have proved that God exists to all who appeal to the authority of Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins is always right, and he have conceded to the ontological argument. (2) Therefore, there is no necessity to investigate who have the more convincing argument further.As for those who do not appeal to authority please continue. no this is just another example of chrsitians trying to be scientists. no this is not even how this works. many worlds happen because of the multiverse but the multiverse isnt even in philosphy. just because a multiverse exists doesnt mean god exists in one of them that is pretty stupid. i mean here is a quot. Fi "Gods are no more likely to exist in any Universe than a planet of dancing dogs quoting Shakespeare." http://answers.yahoo.com...... so the problem is that god probably doest even exist in any multiverse.......I give up... on restraining myself from laughing. You gotta be kidding me. First of all, how do you know I am a christian? (I am not) Second of all, even if I was a christian, I would not be a group of Christians, unless you claim that there is a conspiracy among a bunch of Christians to appear as scientists on this debate. Also, are you saying that Christians cannot be scientists?How the HELL was the multiverse incorporated in a philosophically deductive argument if it does not exist in philosophy? Did you hear about metaphysics? Ontology? 1- The term was coined by a philosopher. (3) 2- Please educate yourself. (4)As for the dude talking about dancing dogs. 1- A dancing dog is a contingent proposition, meaning that it exists in some worlds but not in others. However, God is a necessarily true propositions, which means must exist in all worlds. Everything rational must exist in some possible worlds, so you cannot have something impossible like a square circle or a married bachelor, but laws and concepts exists in all possible worlds.2- The yahoo answers (Is that even a source?) troll makes another false equalization regarding complexity. We are not talking about a certain God, we are only talking about an omnipotent God/being, complexity may vary. It could be an omnipotent tri-headed, one winged six-legged, omnipotent unicorn flying spaghetti monster, which is relatively complex. It could also be an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, omnipotent being, which is not complex at all. Mind as an entity or concept is simple.3- Finally, the yahoo answers guy assumes that God's existence is based on chance. Meaning that we may exist in a world where God exists or a world where God does not exist. I seriously doubt many theists actually believe that. Either way, God's existence is based on necessity as I have previously stated, to counter that you must prove that God's existence is impossible.*Note that I only care about an omnipotent being*. The other characteristics of God does not concern me. Our knowledge of the characteristics of God is limited. It is possible that we may learn a number of them via. the Kalam Cosmological Argument or the moral arguments and perhaps others if they are sound. Still, they would be red herring to the topic at hand.The ontological argument: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. If an omnipotent God can exist, then he exists in some possible worlds. By definition he would exists in all worlds as well, our actual world included. Therefore, God exists in our world.My opponent's foolosophical squabble you say that i cant even say tht something can create while not existing well i say it can. for example we know that a vacum can create a quantum particle. we know this because of science. if science didnt say that then maybe you would have a point but phsyics have come far far far past what you are saying. for instance here is a quote. "For example, a particle pair can pop out of the vacuum during a very short time interval." http://en.wikipedia.org...... so you can create while not existing. its stupid to say otherwise, you are just being ignorant of science.Oh boy. You did it again. Whatever it is you just did it. Again.As predicted.Definition of VACUUM (5) 1 : emptiness of space 2 a : a space absolutely devoid of matter b : a space partially exhausted (as to the highest degree possible) by artificial means (as an air pump) c : a degree of rarefaction below atmospheric pressure From your own source:"the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space"This just horrible. Not only did my opponent source freaking Wikipedia and made an illogical claim from the highest degree possible. He sourced it wrong... Face-palm time?So according to my opponent's pseudo-science. Nothing which is treated as something can create at least particles. That means the existence of explanations and equations is meaningless.I will humble myself and source Wikipedia as I am forced to get down on my opponent's level."According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence." (6)This is a strawman and a clear distortion of science.(1) http://now.msn.com...(2) http://www.nytimes.com..."He dismisses the ontological argument as “infantile” and “dialectical prestidigitation” without quite identifying the defect in its logic."(3) http://philosophynow.org...(4) http://www9.georgetown.edu...(5) http://www.merriam-webster.com...Definition not related to the physics term excluded.(6) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.greatwhatsit.com...; width="150" height="150" />A facepalm, courtesy of my opponent's beliefs.