God Exists.

Thanks, Con, for responding. Unfortunately, Con has not only grossly misunderstood most of my points but provided toothless objections; he has let my syllogism go unchallenged. Con: "He is entirely correct, I was not conceiving God, in fact that is the very point I was trying to make, for any being that could be called God an even more powerful one could be conceived, thereby making his definition theoretically impossible. " That wasn't Con's point. Con's point was that since there was a task that a supposedly omnipotent God could not do (I showed how that argument failed in round 2 using BOTH definitions of omnipotence) Con could conceive of a more powerful force doing that task which would refute my definition of God. Again, I have to point out how *absurd* this line of argumentation is. Think about it. Con is suggesting that if God, an *omnipotent* being, can't complete the task of creating a stone too heavy for him to lift that he can conceive of a force more powerful than an *OMNIPOTENT* being doing that task. An omnipotent being is by definition is most powerful and all powerful. How exactly is Con conceiving of a being more powerful than an omnipotent being? Answer: Con is not. It is utterly impossible due to the definition of omnipotence. Con ignores the definition of God given by Anslem: "the greatest conceivable being". What Con is arguing is that Con can conceive of a being greater than the *greatest* conceivable being. No. That is impossible by definition. This brings me back to my original contention; if Con is conceiving of a being who could possibly be surpassed in any way then he wasn't conceiving of God in the first place! This relates directly to his second argument about greater conceivable beings than God. There are none by definition. I'm not sure how to make this any more clear. Con: "I can not argue against this point because it is challenging the very nature of logic itself, I will however remind the voter that Pros argument is that God must exist, and this only explains how it is theoretically possible for God to exist against logic. Which does not mean he must exists which Pro has the burden of proving. " That part of my refutation to Con's counterargument was simply to show how using any definition of omnipotence the stone paradox does not disprove God. Either way the paradox fails. Con: "I said that an omnipotent being cannot exist and therefore your definition of god cannot exist. " Con said it, sure. But Con's arguments are a long way from backing up that assertion. In fact, I believe I have utterly refuted his arguments. Con: "yes I can conceive a force that can create a boulder God cannot move, I however cannot call this omnipotent because it falls into the same paradox. " I really am trying to make this as clear as humanly possible. Con is saying that he can conceive of a force that could do a "task" that an omnipotent being couldn't do but this force is not omnipotent itself. This force would then be not omnipotent making it by definition less powerful than God. Yet, mysteriously, it is able to do a "task" that the most powerful being conceivable couldn't do. Seriously? This contention strains credulity past it's breaking point. Con: "This too is precisely the point I was trying to make, it is logically impossible to have an omnipotent being because a more powerful one can always be conceived. " At this point I'm worried that Con doesn't understand what logical impossiblity is. Even if an omnipotent being *didn't* exist it would still be logically impossible to have a being more powerful than an omnipotent being. That is analytically true. That would be like Con saying that Con can conceive of a being who knows more than an omniscient being. Con: "I mean that your original argument doesn't show that God is the most powerful thing conceivable, it just shows that it must be more powerful than anything in the universe as we perceive it (our three-dimensional universe). .. " Yes. It does. Take a careful look at the definitions, Con. Specifically the definitions of "supreme being" and "supreme". A supreme being necessarily has all perfections (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc) making it the greatest conceivable being. The argument is specifically is designed to show how God is *not* part of the universe of contingent things as God is necessary. If Con thinks that the argument implies God is in the universe Con is sadly mistaken. It's intended to explain the existence of the universe. Con: ". .. I recognize the possibility that an entity could exist in a different dimension or a different universe and would be able to influence our perceivable universe in any way he wishes but that does not making omnipotent, another being could exist in his level of existence more powerful than the supposed "God" or even another dimension/universe that would give the post-'God' being seemingly omnipotent powers in 'God's' level of existence and so on. " I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this. There *CANNOT* be a being that is more powerful than an omnipotent being! If there is a being more powerful than the god Con is conceiving then it is not the supreme being. Simple. Con: "(In this paragraph Not all mentions of God show him as omnipotent, I started under that setting then introduced a post God being, proving that I can conceive a more powerful being")" I specifically stated that any mention of God in this debate is as the supreme greatest conceivable being. So, with Con admitting that he wasn't referring to God in my sense with his argument(s) from greater conceivable beings he is basically admitting that his objection fall flat. Con: "I would like to remind the voters again that it is pros burden to prove that God by his definition must exist, not my Burden to prove that their is no chance of his definition of God existing, (although I believe I did that anyway)" By letting my argument go unchallenged my burden of proof has been met. All Con has presented has been refuted. Thanks for reading.