The Modal Ontological argument for God's existence is sound

Thanks for your response. I'll respond to each point you make. MAXIMAL GREATNESS "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" The argument at no point attempts to prove that such a being created any sort of existence. It merely establishes to existence of such a being. "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" No, we are not using ignorance. We are using logic and reason. That is the whole point of the argument, and indeed all of philosophy. If there is no logical contradiction in the concept of a Maximally Great Being, then it's existence is possible - it's as simple as that. We have a concept of a Maximally Great Being; that is, a being which is All-Powerful, All-Good and All-Knowing. This includes all great-making properties, but If there are other great-making properties, then the being has them. This does not require knowledge outside of our scope and indeed it does not use them. [1] "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." Con also mentions these later in the debate, so I will respond to them then. "I would argue, however, that an unconscious creator of the universe is in no way inferior to a conscious one" Sure, but it is not necessary for the argument to succeed at all. If to be unconscious is more great than conscious, then it makes no difference to the Maximal Greatness of the being. I would stress, however, that a being that is unconscious cannot also be All-Knowing. "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" Well this is merely an insulting, inaccurate depiction of any sort of Theology there is. God is not a 'tyrant'. He created Free creatures, able to make their own choices. This is the exact opposite to a tyrant. In this same way, we aren't slaves. God doesn't threaten us with eternal suffering, he rewards us with eternal life. We can chose which path to take. OBJECTION #1 "but the potential or possibility does not equate to reality, and your syllogism fails to show how it would" No, absolutely not. But that is not what I argued. I argued that because a maximally great being is just that - maximally great - possibility DOES equate to reality. The transition is revealed within the nature of the being itself. If such a being exists in even one, single possible world then, because it is MAXIMALLY GREAT, will exist in EVERY possible world. So that is why, if a Maximally Great Being exists in some possible world, it transverses into reality. [2] "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" Absolutely, you are right on every account. These are possible worlds, most certainly. But these worlds are contingent; that is to say, they are not necessary. if they exist in one possible world, they don't necessarily exist in every possible world. But a Maximally Great Being is different to these contingent realities. Because as I have already explained, necessary existence is more great than contingent existence. So therefore, a Maximally Great Being will have necessary existence. [3] "But why? Just because it is possible, it must exist" No! This is only the case for necessary beings or concepts. "But I feel as if this is all pandering to the limits of our own universe" No, I would be quite confident in saying that in any possible world, there cannot be a square circle. These are entirely illogical concepts. No law of physics can refute the fact that a square cannot be a circle, and vice-versa. This is exactly what the argument is trying to get across! That logical truths ARE universal. This is entirely uncontroversial; there is no possible world where there are no logical truths. So when Con says that ""maximal" may vary depending on the varying universes", this is just not true - maximal greatness is a logical truth. I would also like to point out to Con that 'universe' is not an entirely accurate world to use, as it implies a physical, space-time reality - but in the argument, we us 'worlds' to convey a logical reality. [4] "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" I will respond to each of Con's points. With the problem of evil, I would say that it is trivially easy to show to be redundant. If a maximally being exists, then it has justification for the evil that occurs. To give an example - if a tsunami were to kill 200,000 people. This sounds inherently evil. But it is entirely plausible to suggest that this tsunami prevented famine from overpopulation in 300 years, that would have killed 2 million people were it not to happen. In which case, the evil is justified. We don't know what the benefits of one piece of suffering may be - and so we cannot label it to be 'evil'. It is likely that it is to be for the greater good. [5] With the Euthyphro Dilemma, again, is easy to show redundant - Things are good because they are rooted within the nature of God. [6] With predestination, all God's foreknowledge means is that God knows what we will freely do in any set of circumstances. It doesn't by any stretch that we don't have free-will just because God knows what we will freely do. [7] Just a quick not, Christianity has nothing to do with this debate, so when Con puts in brackets 'older than Christ', it is not at all relevant to the debate. OBJECTION #2 "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" As I have already said, great-making properties are necessary truths - for if they were not, then they would not be great. For example, how could not being able to do anything, be more great than being able to do everything? Merely because one person thinks them to be true, and another false, does not make them any more or less great - greatness is a standard, not an opinion. So whatever the standard of great is, the being is 'it'. In this way therefore, greatness IS objective - even if what we previously conceived to be great was not great - it doesn't have much to do with the soundness of the argument. [3] "But even if these characteristics were objective, they are circular in reason" Not at all. What the Modal Ontological Argument shows is that by the sheer possibility of a maximally great being existing, then it must, by definition exist. This is not circular; it arrives at the conclusion through a number of premises (2-7), that show this transition. And so when you say "the argument is stating that the maximally great being must exist because it must exist to be maximally grea", that is not at all what the argument is stating - rather, it is saying that because it is POSSIBLE that such a being exists, then it must exist [3] CONCLUSION I think that on a number of occasions, Con gets confused with what 'possible world' means. I doesn't mean some sort of parallel universe, that ACTUALLY exists. It just means a coherent form of reality. I say this because I'm not quite sure if Con completely understood the concept. But, I may be wrong. Nevertheless, I have shown how indeed, the argument is sound, and how Con's objections fail. So, the motion carries I look forward to the final round. God Bless Sources [1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] http://mind.ucsd.edu... [4] Ibid [5] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [6] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [7] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...