It is not rational to believe in God

*shocked*. I honestly didn't think that anybody was actually convinced by the ontological argument! I hope that the gaping holes in the argument become apparent to you by studying the following and recognising what's wrong with my reasoning and, by proxy, what's wrong with yours. 1. It is possible that a maximally randy being exists. 2. Therefore in some world 3. Therefore in every world 4. Therefore in our world 5. Therefore, a maximally randy being exists. By the way, I offer a surgical stitching service for the reasonable price of $20,000 that would protect you from this maximally randy being. Be afraid, be very afraid. I know that I am. Well, I am at least as afraid of my maximally randy monster as I am of your maximally great monster. And you'd have to accept that this super-shagger of a monster, this polyphallic priapic paramour, does exist, at least in some World... that, at least, seems to be the thrust of your assumption of an infinite set of infinite impossibilities in an infinite set of "possible" Worlds (otherwise how do you get from 1 to 2?). Oh, but I know what your "reasoning" will be... allow me to pre-empt you... I was right about the shagger in steps 1 and 2, but the quality of maximal randiness would not, per se, allow this maximally randy being to cross Multiple-World boundaries. Aha... of course, how silly of me! What was I thinking!? This property of maximal greatness allows all things, even those that are impossible... because, couched in your reasoning is the assumption that "maximally great" equates to "supernatural". It's a sublimely subtle sleight-of-hand. You start with this slightly odd construct of "maximally great"... on face value, given the original context of our introduction to this concept, we read this as "the greatest that could possibly exist"; then you go on to assume multiple worlds (not necessarily an argument-killer but you're on thin ice)... then you assume not just multiple worlds but an infinite number (go on, try to defend THAT with evidence or reason)... then, the ultimate Seppuku... you make the flawed assumption that something could possibly traverse between multiple worlds... where is your evidence for that? You see, you'd have to prove that in principle it is possible for anything at all to travel between these multiple worlds (AND explain why we see no evidence of this)... but, of course, since you've got an image (is it Yahweh?) of exactly what you mean by "maximally great" and it's supernatural, capable of all conceivable things even if they are not logical, reasonable, practical, natural or have any precedent... and, in fact, it doesn't just cover ability (to cross worlds) but includes such bogus constructs as being the source of moral authority - why, because might is right? TL;DR: Your definition of "maximally great" makes the assumption that this quality includes the ability to cross the hypothetical multiple worlds that you would have us believe exist (and you would have us believe you are an authority on their actual diversity). Well, there you go... there's the bit that is, as far as the evidence we have so far, impossible... no, I can't PROVE that it's impossible, nor do I need to... you are the one making the bold assumption that we should be convinced by this silly ontological argument on, I may say, irrational grounds! *shocked again*. I honestly didn't think that anybody was actually convinced by the teleological argument. I can hardly bring myself to dispute it, so ridiculous is it... *sighs*, it's not even wrong! - Pauli http://en.wikipedia.org... You're "proving" God by making the assumption (which I firmly reject) that there is an objective purpose. Having made the assumption that there is an objective purpose, you call the holder of objective purpose "God" and rest on your smug posterior. Do you honestly expect anybody rational to be convinced by this "argument"? Your definition of "rational" and mine are clearly at odds. Your final thoughts amaze me with their flimsiness; you realise, of course, that whatever crazy truth science comes up with (no matter how much it shakes our beliefs and redefines how we understand the nature of reality), you could always apply your smug "but look, the bible fits" argument. Tell me this: what could science possibly discover that you could not smugly declare was already told in "a very very simplified version", namely "God did it!". Sorry to be facetious here, but seriously!? "God did it" is a possible explanation for anything and, you could argue, logically consistent... but there is no evidence to support the idea and what it has in a superabundance of explanatory power, it lacks in rationality, testability, evidence or predictive power.