The Ontological Argument is Sound

It is conceivable that a possible world where only one being (B2) currently exists, but previously there were 2 and only 2 beings. The second one (B2) murdered the first (B1) and is why currently there is only one being. B1 was sarcastic, extremely intelligent(sufficient only to the levels needed for the following argument to be true), imaginative, and creative B2 is impulsive, emotional, not creative or imaginative. B1 had decided to make a device so that B2 could have some basic perception of what imagination is. This device temporarily removes all previous memories and supplies false memories in such a way that B2 would be convinced as having existed in this synthesized world for an unknown period of time. It is so well made that while allowing the affixed no free agency it creates the illusion of free agency. The affixed is only "along for the ride" Having completed the device B1 affixes it to B2, and starts it warming up, B2 indicates that it is envious of B1's skills. B1 lacking complete knowledge replies sarcastically "would stabbing me make you feel better?" to which, B2 impulsively decides yes. B1 dies of its wounds just as the device boots up. Reader you are B2. You just don't remember that you are. The very first moment you experienced in this device was when you read this sentence. It may seem to cross your mind that you can imagine things, that you could be creative These idea were planted by the device. The device is designed to be compatible. The memory-thought interface will not present what you would rebel against, while the rest of the device presents a reality that is internally consistent. Think of a city you "remember" hold it in your head now think of a different city. Why did you think of the first city first and not the second city first? Reader from your point of view you seem to stand at the crossroads of input and output. You may feel as if you are the author of your own thoughts and action, an agent acting of its own freewill. however no account of causality leave room for the reader's free will. Thoughts that seem to be self-generated, moods, and desires only spring into view as the device implants them. They move you or fail to move you for reasons, that from a subjective view are inscrutable So reader what are you witnessing here? The device has placed you in a synthetic world where you are reading a debate on the ontological argument to vote on it, you may have a memory that you had read this before when voting was not an option... but you can recall the device implants memories to generate this world. The world that you exist in, in reality, is identical to the synthetic possible world that con can imagine would be self consistent with the synthetic reality . Pro has said, according to your memory "What Con mistakes is that my argument is predicated on imagination," As noted by con above, in this conceivable possible world only one being exists now, a being that can not imagine in this world. To ask B2 to conceive of a possible world one would be dealing with itself, the device . The device has just generated a possible world in cons post, in which only one being actually exists to suggest the ontological argument was true in this possible world would be to say 2 beings exist in this possible world which is noted as only having one being the current maximum beings existing. To say that currently 2 beings actually exist in this possible world would be to talk about a different world where 2 beings actually exist "Therefore, Con's charge that it could both be true... is predicated on imagination potential, not potential of possibility. Hence his charge is a straw-man argument. " Actually it would be the potential of possibilities. I had suggested and now presented a possible world in which the only existent beings are not MGB. the concept of a MGB that necessarily exists can exist with out actually being actualize. As Russell might argue it, "the essence of a person can be described and their existence still remain in question" There is one question I must ask. It would seem to me that all powerful is only limited by what is counter-factual. Not having this idea in me till i read it what is your thoughts on Himma claim "that omniscience and omnipotence may be incompatible: if God is omnipotent, then he should be able to create a being with free will; if he is omniscient, then he should know exactly what such a being will do (thus rendering them without free will). This analysis would render the ontological argument incoherent, as the characteristics required of a maximally great being cannot coexist in one being, thus such a being could not exist." Would this mean that free will does not exist if the ontological argument is sound? When you note middle knowledge it would seem to me god would know the initial conditions as part of natural knowledge and as such the feasible worlds would only number one, the actual world, "He knows what that creature would do in any