The Ontological Argument is a Failure

IntroductionIn this Round, Pro concedes the majority of his previous arguments (they were sufficiently refuted), and takes a new direction. Pro decides to stop refuting the OA directly, and instead makes general claims about God’s existence. Specifically, Pro argues that God’s attributes are contradictory, and therefore, that God cannot exist. Let me remind Pro and the reader that, per Pro’s terms in Round 1, “this debate is not about the existence of God; rather, this debate focuses on the ontological argument.” Pro’s argument is not even relevant to this debate. But let’s be generous and assume, for the sake of argument, that it is relevant to this debate. God has positive and negative propertiesAgain, Pro makes the error of confusing “negative properties” with the “negation of positive properties.” The negative properties of God are positive properties expressed in a negative form. For example, "God is infinite" can be expressed negatively as "God is not finite," or "God is perfect" can be expressed as "God is not unperfect." Pro continues to equivocate by assuming God’s negative properties are the negation of positive properties. I've explained this in previous rounds already, they clearly are different categories. The negation of positive properties are properties that take away from the greatness of its possessor, and by the definition of God generated by the Godelian OA, God has no such properties. God is self-contradictory?Pro argues that God cannot have free-will and know the future at the same time. But Pro assumes that God can only do what is logically possible, and forgets that God is also omnipotent. This means God has the ability to do absolutely anything, including the logically impossible. If we accept the Godelian OA, we also accept God’s omnipotence, in which case it becomes clear that God has the ability to simultaneously know the future and change the future because God can defy logic as well. In fact, if God could not defy the rules of logic then it would mean that God was subject to rules outside his authority. The argument that God’s properties are contradictory is self-refuting. God is a logically coherent being. Again, let’s be generous and assume, for the sake of argument, that God cannot defy logic. It’s not even clear that free-will and being all-knowing imply a contradiction. If God is all-knowing, it means that when God decides to change the future, God will simply know ahead of time of an intention to change the future. In that sense, the two do not imply a contradiction. Furthermore, the idea that free-will requires a state-of-uncertainty (which is Pro’s entire argument) is suspect. Free-will is the ability to choose the best path, and then pursue that path. Free-will, then, is the freedom to follow the path you choose. God has decided on a future, a plan and a path, and God knows what this future is, but God still exercises his free-will in being able to choose this future and follow through with it. Again, there is no contradiction between free-will and omniscience. God is free to choose a future, know what that future is, and follow through with it. That is free-will. And again, because God is omnipotent, God can defy logic. Point is, however you spin it, God is not logically contradictory. God is a fully coherent being, a being whose every property adds to his greatness, and who has no property that takes away from that greatness. Defining a being into existencePro continues to claim that the OA commits the “fallacy of circular reasoning,” even after I demonstrated through a formal proof that the Hartshorne OA commits no such fallacy. Note, also, that Pro has completely dropped the Godelian OA, conceding that it does not commit circular reasoning. What we are talking about here is the Hartshorne OA. Last round, I explained that whether the OA commited circular reasoning or not was irrelevant, if its premises were true. Circular reasoning is only fallacious when the premises are false. Then, I went on to show, through modal logic, that the Harshorne OA does not commit circular reasoning. Pro offered no refutations, no discussion of premises or logical soundness. Instead, Pro simply continues to push his claim that I commit circular reasoning, but offers no explanations as to how I or the OA do this. Let me remind the reader, the Hartshorne shows that the premise, “God possibly exists,” leads, through a valid formal proof, to the conclusion that “God exists.” The argument is not circular because the premise differs from the conclusion. I showed this last Round, but Pro seems to continue pushing the argument that it’s circular reasoning. I admit, I'm somewhat perplexed at Pro's decision to ignore my extensive formal proof refuting his claims. But let's be generous and assume Pro did not ignore it, Pro has simply recognized its validity. Why not the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Pro asks, “Why not take God and replace it with the Invisible Pink Unicorn?” I also addressed this question last Round, although my opponent has also ignored that argument. To repeat: we do not replace God with the “Invisible Pink Unicorn” because God is the ONLY being that is not contingent. Every other object is defined contingently, whereas God is necessary. Pro concedes God is necessary, and provides no argument to show the Invisible Pink Unicorn is necessary. This is because it is easy to think up a world in which it is logically impossible for the Invisible Pink Unicorn to exist. But it is not logically possible to say there is a world in which God does not possibly exist. God is logically possible in every world. Thus, God is not defined contingently. The OA argument holds, and avoids the parody of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.ConclusionPro has barely touched on the logic of the Godelian OA, and I have completely refuted Pro’s claims about the Hartshorne version of the OA. In this past Round, Pro drops arguments against the OA to attack God's existence directly. I sense that Pro has realized the validity of the OA, and now proceeds to argue against its conclusion through other means -- arguing that God is logically contradictory. That is fine, I refute those arguments as well, and show that God is logically coherent. That said, I remind the reader that Pro’s terms expressly focused the debate on the OA, not on God’s existence. Hence, I urge voters to vote conduct against Pro for attempting to argue something that Pro’s terms forbid Pro to do.