The Ontological Argument is Sound

I thank Con for his sincerity here- I appreciate his dedicated thoughtfullness throughout his personal time! Recall the controversial premise, that "It is possible a maximally great being exists."DefinitionsCon questions the meaning of the word "possible" in order attempt to refute premise one. First, this is an extremely weak retreat. Since Con originally attempted to show God as impossible by way of (failed) paradoxes, then it's obvious that his understanding of possibility is mine. Second, I use what's called possible world semantics in order to speak clearly about the Ontological Argument. Recall then what a "possible world" is:A Possible World is a maximal description of the way reality might be or actually is. For example, there is a possible world in which Romney was elected president instead of Obama. This fact would be contingently true if it was actualized. But when discussing maximal excellence it's a different case, for maximal excellence, by definition, can't be contingent but necessary if it exists. That means that if there is some possible world in which maximal excellence is exemplified, then by virtue of being maximally excellent, it is exemplified in all possible worlds, which includes the actual world! I never equivocated with 'possible.' Something is possible just if it's true in some non-actual or actual world. In the case of maximal greatness, if it is true in some world, then by definition it can't be non-actual, for maximal greatness is a necessary property, which follows that it must be in the actual world, not the non-actual world. Now Con fails to see the distinction between one's imagination, and the coherency or possibility of a thing. One can certainly imagine an incoherent thing, but it would be impossible for that thing to exist. For example, I can imagine an actually infinite set of things, but only potentially infinite things exist- actual infinity is an impossibility given the paradoxes elucidated by Hilbert's hotel, http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_paradox_of_the_Grand_HotelAnother example, the statement, "the prime minister is a prime number" isn’t even possibly true! But surely we can imagine David Cameron as the number five! (I actually think he plays a role as 7 in a childrens book ;-)What Con mistakes is that my argument is predicated on imaginiation, and not possibility / impossibility (hence the modal logic used). Simply put, imagining something isn't the same as concieving of something. If something is concievable or coherent, then it is possible. Therefore, Con's charge that it could both be true that [maximal excellence could actually exist and could actually not exist] is predicated on imagination potential, not potential of possibility. Hence his charge is a straw-man argument. So Con's charge of the violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction falls by the wayside, for the question isn't can maximal excellence be imagined or not. But rather the question is, can maximal greatness be possible? In other words, is maximal excellence incoherent or not? But The idea of a maximally great being in every possible world is intuitively coherent. It follows that God’s existence is either possible or impossible, take your pick. a priori Warrant for P1 Con accepts that his initial case has been successfully rebutted. Con then confuses necessary existence (a property) with contingent existence (not a property). He compares a necessarily existing maximal great being to a contingently existing Santa.But this is a failed parody, maximal greatness is such that it is exemplified in all or no possible world. If maximal greatness is possibly exemplified in some possible world, then it follows logically and necessarily that it's exemplified in all possible worlds, including the actual world. Whereas Santa-ness is only possibly exemplified in some world: I can concieve of some possible worlds in which Santa can’t exist, say, a world in which only singularities exist. Pick any fictional character you like, or faries or river sprites- none of these possible beings have the property of maximal greatness, and so cannot logically parody God. Thus the idea of God differs crucially from such parodies, for properties comprising maximal excellence possess intrinsic maximum values. Things like contingent charaters don’t possess these values. My BoPCon asks if I'll bear my burden of proof in the debate by demonstrating that maximal excellence is possibly exemplified. First, not only did I give rational and empirical warrant for thinking that maximall excellence is possible, but also the very fact that we're able to discuss great making properties, each of which cohere with each other, evidences the fact that maximal excellence is in fact possibe, from which it follows that it's necessarily existing in the actual world too!Second, coherency is such that it need not be proved further by more basic means than what we can 'see' is possible. This is part & parcel of what something means to be intuitive.