The Ontological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

IntroductionCon states that he showed it was indeed possible for God to exist, but of course he hasn't, as I countered all his arguments for this notion sufficiently. I showed that it is not possible for God to exist based on the Modal Argument for Atheism, because the plugs for p make God impossible. Since the two arguments (the Modal Argument for Atheism and the Modal Argument for Theism) seem to be in a stale mate, he must show why those plugs for p are impossible without begging the question and assuming God is possible already. Asking me to prove the first premise false is not needed on my behalf, as my only job is to undermine his arguments, not falsify them. Begging The Question FallacyIn order for Pro to be able to meet his burden of proof on the first premise of the Modal Ontological Argument, he must show that any plug for p is impossible. However, he argues that any plug for p is impossible by default because a maximally great being exists in every possible world, which makes those plugs for p impossible. However, to say a maximally great being exists in every possible world, he has to presuppose already that a maximally great being is possible! Therefore, what Pro is doing is presupposing that maximally great being is possible as part of his defense for a maximally great being possible. Thus, his support for the first premise is circular, and entails the begging the question fallacy. This is basically a huge logical blunder. He cannot just presuppose that my plugs are impossible because God exists and that makes them impossible, he has to show my plugs are impossible before God can even be possible. Is The Modal Argument For Atheism Valid?Pro states that D does not follow from C in the Modal Ontological Argument. However, this is clearly not true as it follows Modens Ponens.Uncaused Events In Quantum MechanicsThere is only one essential definition of "uncaused" (not caused), so when scientists say uncaused, they mean uncaused. Pro says it is logically impossible for an event not to have a cause, however there is no law of deductive or inductive logic which states this. Pro must actually prove it is logically impossible, which he has not. He says the cause of the virtual particles are the fluctuations, but the virtual particles fluctuations are the vacuum fluctuations. An effect cannot be its own cause, so Pro is mistaken. Also there can be no cause of these quantum events (hidden variables), as they have been ruled out by Bell's inequalities and Leggett's inequalities[1][2].Is The Argument From Quantum Mechanics Futile?Pro presents a reformulated argument, but the first premise of this argument relies on the premise from the original argument (which I successfully undermined by citing quantum mechanics). Thus, my argument from quantum mechanics still undermines the first premise. He cannot just claim that everything that has a beginning has a cause of existence, because I just proved in this round that there can be no cause of the beginning of vacuum fluctuations. Has the Cosmological Argument Been Established?Pro believes the answer is yes, but I disproved this. If there are any hidden variables doing any causing of these fluctuations, then would either have to be local, or non-local. Bell's inequalities rules out local hidden variables, and Leggett's nequalities rules out non-local hidden variables. So we know that virtual particle fluctuations begin to exist without a cause, thus falsifying the first premise. They would still depend on a necessary condition (the quantum vacuum), but without any sufficient causation, and just necessary conditions, we can hardly call that a "cause". Why A Maximally Great Being?God would have to be timeless causally prior to the universe, thus, atemporally prior to the first moment of time. Therefore, if God created the universe, there would have to be a state of affairs at which time did not apply to him (as time wouldn't exist). Therefore, my claim that a "timeless mind" is incoherent still stands. A mind must think, and thinking is a process; which requires time. The Appeal To Ignorance FallacyPro says that the reason his dichotomy is a true dichotomy (between a disembodied mind and abstract objects), is because he cannot think of, or conceive of anything else. This is a classic appeal to ignorance fallacy. Just because he cannot think of another option, doesn't mean there couldn't be one. The Non-Sequitur FallacyA maximally great being existing does not follow from the notion that mind created the universe. For all we know, this mind would posses qualities that do not fit comfortably with maximal greatness. Either way, I showed a "timeless mind" (by "timeless" I mean, not within time) is incoherent. The Moral ArgumentPro has not proven that only a maximally great being can ground objective morality (perhaps they are grounded in the nature of existence itself, or a being who is omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent: meaning not maximally great). He also hasn't proven that morals are objective. He mentions are own immediate experience, but my experience lets me know that my morals are based on my subjective wants (I don't want people to get raped), which seems to make them subjective. Even if someone thinks child abuse is good, I would have strong subjective feelings against this, but it wouldn't follow that morality was objective. Since Pro didn't sufficiently support either premise of this argument sufficiently, the argument doesn't go through. The Leibnizian Cosmological ArgumentPremise 2 is the crucial premise, and Pro has not supported it. However, this entire argument was essentially refuted when I refuted the previous cosmological argument. The Fallacy Of EquivocationThe Leibnizian Cosmological Argument only argues for a being that is factually "necessary" to ground all contingent beings, not a being logically "necessary" due to being a maximally great being. Since Pro is equivocating, this Cosmological Argument, even if true, does not show a maximally great being exists. The Fine-Tuning ArgumentHe says there is no evidence for a multiverse, well there is no evidence for God either (and remember, Pro has the burden of proof). His argument wouldn't apply to a "mother verse" (or multiverse), because it doesn't matter how unlikely our universe is by itself, if there is enough universes, then at least one universe like ours is likely. The fine-tuning argument, even if it goes through, only shows some type of intelligence; not a maximally great being. ConclusionThe Modal Argument for Atheism shows the fatal flaw in the Modal Ontological Argument. In the Modal Arguments for Atheism, a simple possibility shows the first premise of the Modal Ontological Argument false. There are countless plugs for p. For example, "all sentience is contingent". It seems at least possible that all sentience is contingent, but this means God is impossible, and thus the Modal Ontological Argument fails. This is because if God existed, then it would hold in every possible world that at least one sentient being is necessary. Since that is not the case (it is possible that all sentience is contingent), then God is impossible. Atheism is demonstrated off of a simple possibility. However, it really isn't, as it cannot both be true that "a maximally great being is possible" and "all sentience being contingent is possible" and both of them do indeed seem intuitively plausible, so Pro had the burden to show the latter false. He attempted this by:a) Begging the questionb) Using external arguments for GodSince begging the question entails an invalid argument, and I undermined all arguments for God from Pro:The first premise of the Modal Ontological Argument has not been established as true. Pro loses the debate. Sources[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://www.quantumphil.org...PS. As per the rules, Pro cannot argue next round, he must simply put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed."