The Ontological Argument proves that God exists!

A priori again Pro attempts to undermine my a priori argument (which contradictory to his claim that it does not address his objections to Aquinas, the XYZ argument or Hume’s objections) but I humbly attest that I have sufficiently dealt with his objections. Let me put it to you this way: The expression 'a priori' does not indicate with sufficiently the full meaning (or truth) of our question. For it has been customary to say, even of much knowledge that is derived from empirical sources, that we have it or are capable of having it a priori, meaning that we do not derive it immediately from experience, but from some universal rule (a rule which is itself borrowed by us from experience). Thus we would say of a man who undermined the foundations of his house, that he might have known a priori that it would fall and that he doesn’t have to wait for the experience of its actual falling. But still he could not know this completely a priori. For he had first to learn through experience that bodies are heavy, and therefore fall when their supports are withdrawn. In what follows we shall understand by a priori knowledge, not knowledge independent of this or that experience, but knowledge absolutely independent of all experience. Opposed to it is empirical knowledge, which is knowledge possible only a posteriori, that is, through experience. A priori modes of knowledge are entitled pure when there is no addition of anything empirical. So, for instance, the proposition, 'every alteration has its cause', while an a priori proposition, is not a pure proposition, because alteration is a concept which can be derived only from experience. We must distinguish between pure and empirical knowledge. Experience shows us that a thing is this, but not that it can’t be something else. So if we have a proposition that’s thought of as necessary, then it’s an a priori judgment; otherwise, it is not derived from any proposition except one that also has the validity of a necessary judgment, it is an absolute a priori judgment, which Plantinga insistently depends on and passes as given in P1. The Fine Tuning of Morality By fine tuning I mean changing properties, characteristics or any parts of the instigative premise of the debate. In highlighting Pro’s accusation of my ‘dropping’ God’s contradictory properties I meant to be implicit by showing that even though we had agreed about what those traits would be in the instigation phase of this debate he was willing to manipulate God’s properties by rearranging the furniture. Pro claims that he has never done such a thing but I leave it to the voters to decide for themselves. Speaking of fine tuning, “a maximally great being, in order to be maximally great, would have to exist in all possible worlds" - is nonsense and is not part of the definition of maximally great. P3 Plantinga describes "maximally excellent" as necessarily including the three omni's: benevolence, potence, knowledge. If this being enjoys maximal excellence in all possible worlds, then this being is "maximally great." Plantinga wishes to establish P3 by establishing that a maximally great being exists in at least one possible world. So, without a doubt P3 begs the question. One only has the epistemic right to accept the premise if one understands the nested modal operators, and that if one understands them within the system S5 (without which the argument fails) then one understands that "possibly necessarily" is in essence the same as "necessarily".Thus the premise is invalid because the conclusion is embedded within it. It follows that Plantinga defines possible world as a logical state of affairs. So, if we presume that a maximally great being would have the power to cause itself to stop existing, then there is a possible world where it has done so, and in that world a maximally great being does not exist. Along with this, I’ve provided sufficient examples of how impractical it is to use a priori knowledge to make absolute assertions about outer realities when all realities (or possible worlds) are indeed private. Final thoughts I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this debate and I’d like to thank my opponent. He is obviously well versed in the language of this argument. With that in mind I’d like to remind the voters that the burden of proof does lie with Pro and as such we look forward to hearing about how a priori knowledge can truly reveal anything more than a priori data independent of experience.