It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God.

I hope that saying what I said won't count as a new point. 1. My argument HAS NOTHING TO DO with gaunillo's argument, except for the idea of changing something. Nothing is greater than the greatest possible being imaginable since it is the greatest. Using 'your' own argument I showed that it is possible to imagine something greater than it actually is. My argument is still as valid as the old one. If changing definition from God: the creator of the universe to God: the greatest thing possible doesn't count as changing definition than I don't see the difference between God: greatest being imaginable God: the creator of the universe. 1) There is a greatest thing imaginable(it EXISTS in the mind) since greatest means absolute, nothing is greater than the greatest being imaginable, therefore I have shown that it can EXIST.(This isn't a new point.) Absolutes also aren't affected by humans(your an also my, not new point.) 2) The argument becomes false under Con's definition. That is exactly my point! I have proved that God has got existence, but only in the mind. That was the whole argument! I know that this makes the actual argument become false. That also is my whole point! And Pro doesn't even disagree that I haven't done that. Pro actually has just made clear what I wanted to make clear. This is where "hehe" comes. 'It can only be used to prove GREATEST possible being.' Well I have news for you. I have done that, only this time the being is the GREATEST possible immaginable being. 2. There can be no logic without a place for logic to actually exist. It doesn't say: there can be no logic without humans preceiving it. If you were to go to past, if you were to go 5 billion miles out in the universe logical laws would be the same. Yes, however there would be no past to go to, it would be impossible to change location if there wasn't a universe. If there is nothing, there is exactly NOTHING. My point still stands. It would be waste of time to copy- paste it here. Your critics doesn't disprove my point, they even have nothing to do with it. Since there would be no logical absolutes with no universe I don't even have to disprove them. This destroys the argument in its main idea: No God, no logical absolutes, therefore God.(not a new point.) Without the universe there would be nothing. Nothing is NOTHING. With nothing there would be no laws or functions.(These are not new points since I said that nothing is nothing in my previous rounds.) how many times I have got to tell what is nothing. I have agreed with the law of excluded middle. I though I explained it. Where do I mention that I belieave in 3 states of existence? My first TAG point was about: you exist or you don't, you can't know which one is true. I don't remember mentioning unknown as a state of being. I said there are still many things unknown to us. I will be a nice guy and won't tell what's wrong, in my opinion, with the cosmological argument. I don't want to be overly penalized. This is why I wouldn't mind to have part 2 of this debate so I can continue arguing without fear of almost definitely losing for posting new arguments in the last round. (Pro actually does exactly that.) in P3+4 you only explain why this cause has to be timeless and immaterial, then you add transcendent, powerful, knowledgeable (Not a new point, I have explained this in my last round.) and explain nothing. One could see me doing nothing wrong in the first round, because my whole point is that god is not the creator of the universe, so I basically disagreed with your definition of god, and that isn't against the rules. The blind watchmaker argument. Since the debate went far away from this argument, it wouldn't even change anything if I started protecting it, I also can't as you already know. Argument of destruction and decay. You almost seem to try to provoke me to protect my arguments, I know that my defence in comment section doesn't count(I explain myself there). Sorry, not taking your trap this time. None of my arguments have ceased to exist. But I guess this would be making a new point to. It actually doesn't change anything, No new points in last round, I have covered all your points, your defense here shouldn't count. By the way your Hail Smithis made me go more like Hail Sithis, if I have understood correctly what you're saying. Its been a great time for me. I made my mistakes, but I hope to make everybody(and myself included) learn from them. This is my first 'real' debate, I have never done this before. I'm sorry if I made anyone angry with my probably- not so good- skills in this language. For the ending I want to thank Pro for his motivation: "please leave the last round empty, but short conclusion is acceptable." Not to be rude, but that almost made my day. It has been a great debate, I thank Pro for spending his time trying to make me believe in God, that is why I actually wanted to do this in the first place. Now go and vote, I have made enough excuses :)