"There is reason to believe a God exists"

So before I address my opponent's statements I shall like to point out that he didn't even engage in commentary on my cosmic consciousness argument. On the Ontological argument: The reason I say that P1 is the only premise worth tangling with is that the only to debunk this argument is to show that a Maximally Great Being can't exist. This is attempt is most commonly tried with the omnipotence paradox the paradox I addressed. Okay so first my colleague seems to have a problem with Existence an objection I assume is taken from the writings of the philosopher Immanuel Kant. The Ontological argument does not assume existence as a property and thus any objections based on existence are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. Now for anyone who truly understands the ontological argument you would know that only P1 needs to be defended because if P1 is sound then that means that every other Premise follows logically from the first in other words defend P1 and modal logic will handle the rest hence the Modal Ontological argument. Onto Question begging. I disagree that I begged the question. Here is why. Okay, So the first problem with the argument is that we are confusing de Dictor and De Re. Di Dicto refers to the necessity of a statement while De Re refers to the necessity of a thing. The MOA uses a De Re for what you have accused me of doing to be rational P1 would have half to go like this P1: It is possible that it is necessary that God exists which is not what I argue. Instead, I argue that necessity is a property of a Maximally Great Being as a being that is impossible would be irrelevant to the discussion. Just to let you know there is a difference between question-begging and circular reasoning and the to don't necessarily go hand in hand. CR happens when a premise, Either implicit or explicit, Is equivalent to the conclusion. In other words, P1 has the same truth conditions as the Conclusion the MOA would avoid this by the fact that it states a possibility and through deductive logic asserts certainty. Though the MOA used here is meant to inform and when a syllogism is used to inform circular reasoning is allowed. This happens in Science with Theories. For a Scientific theory to be "confirmed" the theory must have the same truth condition of the data empirically collected. An argument begs the question of it only relies on information from a single premise in order to prove a conclusion in the case of the MOA that is P1. When the argument is meant to inform then begging the question is also valid. Okay, So onto Sentience as with all philosophical arguments and definitions there are two types of criteria for definition making logically coherence and practically in a "possible word" a God that is sentient would fulfill the criteria much more than a good that is not sentient. There was no arbitrary decision making but instead, A reasoned set of criteria was made. The Ontological argument is, In my opinion, The best argument for the existence of "God" there are indeed many more objections but until they are brought up they will not be addressed here. Onto the Moral argument: There is a reason why I defend P2 the most because this is controversial and so I am glad that I will be able to expound on the defence. I am interested in my opponent's objections to P3 as I thought such a Premise was virtually undebatable. Okay so into intuition. I shall like to address my opponent's last paragraph before I address the first. My argument from moral progress and convergence covers this but basically, The difference in cultural attitudes to one another such as the burning of Protestants under Mary I's reign is made by factual errors one group holds about another not necessarily more differences. This supposed subjectivity of intuition is removed and becomes more objective by removal of factual errors. Allow me to give you an example at one point in my life I would have believed that conversion therapy for homosexuals was a morally virtuous thing but that is because I had the mindset which stated that homosexuality was a choice instead of an inborn natural like heterosexuality once I and other people like me removed from ourselves this intellectual burden our views on homosexual therapy become objectively similar or same to that of those who had opposed it from the beginning. Further on this point is the mix of intuition and epistemic particularism. You see the burden of proof is actually on you to mount a case that our intuition cannot be treated as objective until you do objectivity is a default position just like we don't assume skepticism about the physical world unless we are given reason to. It is possible that you are a butterfly dreaming you are a human but until a case, Is made that you are you can stick with saying you are a human. Possibility is not probability. Any sort of factual error such as a caveman thinking the earth is flat doesn't mean intuition is subjective is just means that are intuition is constantly evolving as we become more aware of the world we are in. The same idea applies to the argument from experience. I don't see that objection in my opponent's commentary. We decide right and wrong from rationality and our responses to actions against us. This has nothing to with belief but reasoned out theories about the past and the present and our ethical framework. Comfortability is not a good way to determine morality because comfort is subject. Though I agree the conversation is not over in the world of a subjective moral framework. My point in the Epistemic fact like Intellectual honesty is virtually similar to moral facts like Moral Honesty and to uphold one upholds the other as they go hand in hand one cannot be objective and the other subjective. My arguments still stand and there is still reason to believe in the existence of a God. Thank you and God bless. Sources: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=zjkgD4w9w1k https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=ixqsZP7QP_o https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=FC94N-mZnrM https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=RQPRqHZRP68