The Modal Ontological argument for God's existence is sound

MAXIMAL GREATNESS `` "Con asks for a definition of 'Maximal Greatness'. And I would simply describe such a being as All-Powerful, All-Knowing and All-Good. There are a number of 'sub-properties' that this being therefore has, which comes under the umbrella of the 3 main properties. These would include examples such as infinite creativity, all-loving, and most importantly, necessity in it's existence. Con then asks whether a maximally great being points towards a consciousness. And I would say so, yes; I personally think that to be a decision-making agent is greater than to not be. A 'Great' property is a property that is greater to have than not. It is the highest standard of goodness. (but not as in morally "good")" `` RESPONSE I thank Pro for elaborating on this, and I will begin by pointing out some problems in his definitions, as they seem a bit arbitrary. For instance, the three omni-characteristics of God apart from not being necessary at all, is at best an imagination that is arbitrarily pushed upon the origin of the universe in some personified metaphor. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a conscious supernatural force created any sort of existence, and indeed, Pro's syllogism in no way establishes that axiom. Instead, it simply assumes that the "maximally great being" must exist because it is "possible" given our own infinite ignorance. I just remind Pro that we cannot use our own ignorance as positive proof of something being possible. For instance, anything beyond the physical sphere of our universe, we have no comprehension of, unless we pander to the imagination of hell and heaven. Simply said, it is just as likely, if not more likely, that an unconscious force "created" or originated the world. I say this given the incongruity of reality and the tri-omni virtues of God; the problem of evil, the Euthyphro Dilemma, the problem of free will and omniscience, etc. all of these factors make God an even more likely a candidate of fiction than any real reflection of reality or nature. `` "'Being' is anything that is in existence. So, a 'Maximally great being' is something that is in existence (or potentially in existence), possessing all great-making properties." `` RESPONSE I would argue, however, that an unconscious creator of the universe is in no way inferior to a conscious one. The "greatness" is entirely relative, as I see the general view of "God" to be pretty petty, in the sense that he is a tyrant that created slaves to worship him at the threat of eternal suffering. But of course, this only emphasizes the differing opinions of "greatness." `` "While we are on definitions, a 'possible world' is possible description of reality [1] - but I assume you knew that." "Well just about everything we can conceive of is possible. That Romney will win the 2016 election, that the letter 'Q' never existed, or that unicorns exist. These things are logically coherent - and therefore possible. If these things are possible, then they exist in some possible world. That is, some conception of reality that is logically coherent. [2]" `` RESPONSE Yes, but your definition solves none of the contradictions and fallacies in the syllogism. Certainly, nothing has to be the way it is, and we can conceive of things being different, but the potential or possibility does not equate to reality, and your syllogism fails to show how it would. I can just as well conceive of a world without humans and religion, a world without god or satan, my conceptions, however, have no bearing on reality. Just as well, we can assume that Romney won the election in some alternative universe, but that doesn't mean that that universe exists, and your syllogism does not establish why it necessarily exists on the virtue of it being possible. This is like saying, because everyone has the potential to win the lottery, there is a world where everyone has won the lottery. But why? Just because it is possible, it must exist? `` "But what is not possible? Things that are contradictory are not possible - square circles, married bachelors, anything that is logically incoherent. Such things exist in no possible world - there is no world where these things exist. [3]" `` RESPONSE But I feel as if this is all pandering to the limits of our own universe, failing to realize that other universes (given that they exist) can have their own laws of physics and their own standards of existence completely incomparable to our own. The problem with your argument is that you assume you know what is impossible or illogical based on the physics of our own universe, when we are discussing "possible worlds" that essentially has no limits beyond our imagination. "Maximally great being" becomes problematic in this sense as well, as the "maximal" may vary depending on the varying universes. We come back to the problem of relativity. `` But why is a Maximally Great Being Possible? Well, because the concept is logically coherent. There is no logical contradiction between a being that is All-Loving, All-Powerful and All-Knowing. We can conceive of a world where such a being exists with there being no logical contradictions. Furthermore, we can bring in other arguments for God's existence - such as Cosmological, Axiological, or Fine-Tuning arguments. [4] But that is for another debate! So, we can conclude that the first 2 premises are correct; that the concept of a maximally Great Being Existing is possible - and that if it is possible, then a Maximally Great Being exists in some possible reality. `` RESPONSE This seems a bit lazy of a justification. There are many contradictions such as the Epicurean paradox (problem of evil) which is older than Christ, Euthyphro Dilemma (also older than Christ), along with the general problems of predestination based on omniscience. The other arguments for the existence of "God" also are questionable, but indeed, they are not the focus of the debate. The syllogism as it stands is unsound. `` "This brings us to the crucial part of the argument - the jump from 'some possible world', to 'every possible world'. I have already defined what a Maximally great being is; it is something that exists, and has all great-making properties. So what this means is that a Maximally Great Being is one that has necessary existence; as necessary existence is a great-making property. So if it exists in one world (some possible world), then it exists in all of them. [5] Contingent beings - unicorns for example, or as my opponent says, apples - only exist in some possible world(s). There is no jump, as they are not maximally great and therefore do not have necessary existence. So when Con asks "At what point does the potential for a "maximally great being" to exist, become a certainty on the virtue of it being possible?", the answer is that it is revealed within the nature of a Maximally Great Being - such a being is one which possesses necessary existence. When it exists in one possible world, by definition, it exists in every possible world. It should be worth nothing that we can't just apply 'Maximal Greatness' to anything, like the famous comparison to a Maximally Great island. Because it is simply not possible for such an entity to be Maxinally Great, as it is by definition a contingent, physical being. [6]" `` RESPONSE But this argument is arbitrary at best (refer to previous arguments as well). "Maximally Great Being" is entirely a subjective interpretation or perception fabricated by human beings. "Greatness" does not actually exist on an objective standard beyond mathematical truths. You assert that a maximally great being must exist by necessity, and yet, a Buddhist or Daoist may argue the greatest virtue of existence is emptiness and that emptiness is the essence of existence. All your standards of greatness and "max" are limited to your imagination and preference instead of reality and objectivity. Essentially, what you are arguing is that there is something that originates each possible world (given that they exist), and then you arbitrarily give this originator characteristics that YOU value and think are great, such as all-love, all-knowing, and all-powerful. But even if these characteristics were objective, they are circular in reason, because basically the argument is stating that the maximally great being must exist because it must exist to be maximally great, which is basically like saying the apple must exist because it must exist to be an apple (as apples necessarily must exist in order to be apples). In short, this sort of argument is just sophism and does not actually produce any "sound logic." I believe the resolution remains negated. I look forward to Pro"s response.