Anselm's Ontological Argument for God is Sound

To reiterate what I said in Round 1 and Round 2, knowledge is based on observation. The definition of God that my opponent has provided is illegitimate, therefore, because he has not presented any facts that it is based upon. It is only empty words or an expression of emotion - if it is more than this, he has provided no reason to think so. In his last post, my opponent attempted to address this by repeated his definition of God: " I've defined God as the ultimate, perfect being, that created the universe. That being is a sentient, all-powerful, all good, and all knowing being." This is only a repetition of his definition with no attempt to address the epistemological objection that I have made to it multiple times by now. If my opponent does not refute this objection to Anselm's ontological argument, as I believe he will not, then I must be judged the winner of this debate. My opponent made five main points in his last post, which I will now address (I have cut out the two points #3 and #5 which just say "I've already addressed this," and split his point #6 into two points for clarity): 1. "Rational thinking" is important, because it provides us with knowledge of other minds, the universe, etc., etc. 2. It is inconceivable for the greatest conceivable being not to exist. 3. We can't know everything about the greatest conceivable being, but we can know that it is sentient, all powerful, etc. 4. I'm changing the subject, because the ontological argument is not based on observation. 5. If empiricism is all we have, then we can't think at all, because we need reason in addition to observation. Let's consider these points one by one. In defending point 1, my opponent presents a number of examples of ideas that he claims we could only have gotten through "rational thinking," apart from observation. Let's go through these one by one. First, my opponent argues that we couldn't know that other minds exist by means of observation. This is false, since we can know that other minds exist by an analogy to our own case. I am conscious, and I can see that my mind is the cause of my acting in certain ways. Other people also act in those ways, so they must also be conscious. Second, my opponent argues that we can't know by observation that objects and organisms lower than humans aren't acting less intelligent than we are to fool us. But this is simply an arbitrary suggestion, not a serious challenge to empiricism. All of the evidence we have indicates that the lower organisms genuinely are not as intelligent as we are. Third, my opponent argues that we can't know by observation that the universe is real. On the contrary, it is a self evident axiom that the universe is real, and this is contained in every observation. He also argues that the people around us may be actors in a conspiracy, which is yet another arbitrary suggestion. Fourth, my opponent argues that we can't know by observation that the scientific method yields truth. This is false, however, since the scientific method is defensible by means of self evident philosophical principles like the law of causality. Moreover, the scientific method has had overwhelming practical success, which serves as a strong reason to think that it is a valid epistemology. Fifth and finally, my opponent argues that we can't know by observation that a watch or this website wasn't made by an unintelligent force of nature. This is false, since watches and this website resemble other things that we know from observation were made by humans. Having addressed my opponent's alleged counterexamples to empiricism, I will now return to the other points I numbered above. Point 2 is clearly nothing more than a repetition of Anselm's ontological argument. The problem, as I have said repeatedly, is that the definition of God being used here is illegitimate. Reasserting that, given the definition, the nonexistence of God is inconceivable, is not a valid objection, since the definition itself is in question. Point 3 is also essentially a repetition. My opponent claims that although we can't know everything about God, we can know that he is sentient, all powerful, and so on. But my objection asserts that we can't know anything about God through Anselm's ontological argument, and indeed that the very definition of God being used is illegitimate. Point 4 asserts that I'm changing the subject, because the ontological argument is not based on observation. But that is my whole point - an argument that is not based on observation is invalid in light of that alone. I am not changing the subject, I am introducing a valid epistemological concern into the debate, one which my opponent has not adequately addressed. Point 5 asserts that empiricism is inadequate, since we need reason in addition to the senses. But this is consistent with empiricism. Empiricism does not reject reason, it only says that reasoning must be based, at bottom, on sensory data. Reason is a valid tool, but it needs sensory data to work with to produce knowledge. To sum up, my opponent still has not presented a cogent response to Anselm's ontological argument, and he has resorted to simply repeating the argument itself on multiple occasions without addressing my objection.