Ontological arguments make God's existence at least slightly more likely

I'll be honest; I am not sure where to start. The proposition of this debate is that "Ontological arguments (OA) make God's existence at least slightly more likely". Pro claims that he provided an OA, but what he provided is hardly an OA, but I will do my best to address his claim. What are the Ontological Arguments? Ontological Arguments are philosophical arguments for the existence of God that uses ontology [1]. Here is an example of an ontological argument (Anselm's) [2]: 1. Assume God does not exist. 2. 'God' is defined as "that than which no greater can be conceived" 3. "That than which no greater can be conceived" must therefore not exist. (From 1 & 2) 4. "That than which no greater can be conceived" exists only in imagination, not in reality. (From 2 & 3) 5. If "that than which no greater can be conceived" were to exist in reality as well as in imagination, it would be even "greater". 6. But that would mean "That than which no greater can be conceived" is not "that than which no greater can be conceived". (From 4 & 5) 7. "That than which no greater can be conceived" must exist in imagination and also exist in reality for it to be the greatest thing conceivable. 8. That means 'God' both does and does not exist (from 1 & 7). 9. Premise 1 cannot be true (reductio ad absurdum). 10. 'God' exists. There are many other Ontological Arguments, and I asked Pro to use up to three OA's for this debate. I ask Pro to try again. Prelude I want to start by saying that I believe in God, and may be even considered an apologist. The reason I am debating this is to show that these OA's are outright awful. Most Pro God debaters lose the majority of these debates! Rebuttal to Pro's Ontological Argument As I mentioned earlier, Pro didn't really provide an Ontological Argument, but I'll try to address his claim. R1. Existence and Elements of existence Pro defines to exist as "to effect another existent thing" [sic]. But to affect another existent thing, requires the other thing to already exist, which would be a circular definition. Why complicate the definition of existence when it's a very simple definition? The precise definition is to have objective reality or being [3]. Pro continues that an "an infinitesimal [small part] is considered apart from any other thing it simply cannot exist on the condition that "To exist is to effect another existent thing. "" [sic]. Pro's claim is invalid, because there's no reason to rationally and logically believe that an infinitesimal small part doesn't actually exist. It can even exist physically. Size is not a precondition for existence. Pro continues that for something to exist independently, it requires three fundamentally immaterial elements: A member (infinitesimal thing), another member and a mean of interactions. First of all, this is based on the fallacious definition of existence. Second, the infinitesimal small member can be physical and material. Third, this argument is a bare assertion! Why can't something exist by itself? These arguments (or contentions) are invalid and should be dismissed. R2. The Harry Potter Argument Excuse the title, but I didn't have a better definition. Pro argues that even though Harry Potter doesn't actually exist, "If I were to say "Harry talked to Hermione. " however, then something certainly does exist. " But Pro is simply mistaken. Harry Potter exists imaginative, but doesn't actually and objectively exist. Do I really have to explain that my proposition is to prove that God exists actually, and not imaginatively? According to Pro's claim, the probability of God's existence is just as likely as the existence of the 12 turtles that hold the universe (I made that up). It's just as likely as the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster if one talks to a Pastafarian [4]. This argument should be dismissed. R3. Every-bloody-thing Pro argues that nothing could have happened. No, it can't. Nothing, by definition, doesn't happen! But since it's irrelevant to the debate, I won't get too philosophical here. Pro argues that "Nothing literally exploded into everything and not-thing that could ever be and/or should never ever happen, instantaneously". This is a bare assertion and hardly tenable. R4. The Ontological Argument? I think I'm detecting some kind of an Ontological Argument. Let me try to write it down: 1. Because this is "everybloodything" and there is no logic present to say that one thing cannot be simultaneously itself and another very different thing, this chaos would be pretty thoroughly (even infinitely) omnifarious (to say possessing of all forms. ) Response: Pro is driving me crazy here! Yes, it's illogical that something can be simultaneously two different things. Pro is arguing that such a thing actually exists? This is a bare assertion, not to add that it's illogical and there's no reason for me or anyone to believe such a thing. This premise is false. 2. It is not only unrestrained by the laws of nature, but is also free of even logic itself and so must be omnipotent. Response: Pro fails to show that such a thing actually exists. Pro also fails to show that a thing can be free of logic or unrestrained by the laws of nature. And even if such a thing does exists, it doesn't follow that it must be omnipotent! This premise is also false. 3. To say that "nothing created it" is the same as saying that it is "Uncreated", and nothing sure did create it! I agree with the definition that if "nothing created it" means it's "uncreated". But why does it entail that "nothing sure did create it"? This is non-sequitur and therefore is also false. 4. We have determined that this thing is infinitely omnifarious This is based on the Part 1 which is fallacious by itself, therefore there's no reason to agree to this. 5. This thing possesses infinite minds (or a single infinite mind) Pro didn't provide any explanation to why this is the case. It was a bare assertion. 6. If it has an infinite mind, then it's omniscient I will let this one go. Sure, why not! 7. Because a few minds must be vaguely human thinking minds, then this thing is probable personal Is Pro pleading that God has the sum of all the minds? (Similar to pantheism) Regardless, why "a few minds must be human thinking", and even so, why would it follow that this thing is personal? 8. Therefore God Exists The majority of these premises are simply false or invalid. It doesn't help the argument for God's existence infinitesimally more likely. As I said before, following this kind of thinking you'll end up making everything and anything more likely including the flying spaghetti monster. I therefore negate. Sources [1] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://rationalwiki.org... [3] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [4] . http://www.venganza.org...