God's Existence (Christian)

Thank you for that response friend; it is now time for my response. Rebuttal of Ontological Argument Anselm’s logic: “1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined). 2. God exists as an idea in the mind. 3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. 4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist). 5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined. ) 6. Therefore, God exists. ” There are flaws with this argument of “defining” God into existence. This argument makes the unsubstantiated assumption that things that exist are better than things that don’t exist. That’s a strange way to look at existence, are flying pigs more flawed than pigs? Rebuttal of Ontological Argument Anselm’s logic II: “1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined. 2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist. 3. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, 4. then we can imagine something that is greater than God. 5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God. 6. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality. 7. God exists in the mind as an idea. 8. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality” What if you substitute God out for an infinite number of things, (and change a few words to make it grammatically correct)? By definition, this donut is an object than which none greater can be imagined. So, this donut has to exist not only in imagination, but also in reality if you follow the steps of logic. You can substitute in an infinite amount of things and you come up with absurd answers. When an argument starts producing absurdities, this argument needs to be thrown out. In reality, this argument is a fallacy. Rebuttal of Mulla Sadra’s Ontological argument: “1. There is existence 2. Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived 3. God is perfection and perfection in existence 4. Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism 5. That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism). 6. That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence. 7. Hence God exists. ” This argument is a fallacy, because it defines existence as a property of God. You again define God into existence; a definition can only describe properties of things that exist. So what it amounts to is: If God existed, and thus had the properties described in his definition, he exists! This is obviously absurd, therefore this argument is a fallacy. Rebuttal of William Lane Craig and Alan Planting’s 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. ” The problem is; your conception of actual reality is only a conception, not reality itself. You also make the unsupported assumption that multiple realities exist. Under the rules of this debate it said this, “Second round will be for arguments only. ” My opponent then said, “I accept sir” Then my opponent goes on to post his rebuttals in the second round. My opponent has broken the rules of the debate and given himself an unfair advantage throughout the entire debate, whether on purpose or not, my opponent has cheated. I will not respond, or read any of the rebuttals for they are cheating. Conclusion: I have defeated all of my opponents arguments. I look forward to the next round and what my opponent will respond with.