Does God Exist: An Ontological Argument

Thanks Existence. Pro more or less repeats himself. His argument simply is, we can’t deduce something as existing just by the notion, if said thing is physical, however with God, you can. I see no reason why we can’t do the same with extra-physical things. Even if Kant was only objecting to deducing existence from things in space-time, existence simply means to have actual being, so we can still use the same objection. Nothing really changes when we apply it to non-physical objects, only its physical existence. The problems with having being as a predicate still hold if the thing in question is physical or not. Take abstract objects; we could state “x” is an abstract object that is defined as existing. Defining it as non-physical changes nothing, the tautological and negative existential problems are still there. Pro’s response seems to be a special pleading fallacy. Furthermore, Pro has dropped his rebuttal that this objection is irrelevant. Yet he still claimed it. He ignores my argument pointing out the Meinongianist philosophy of language in the Ontological argument, making Kant’s objection relevant. The objection still stands. Greatness Pro still commits a strawman fallacy here. He claims this issue is irrelevant. Pro is unaware that he gave evidence of his strawman. This issue can't be irrelevant, it attacks the concept of a great being. If my argument is true, then you couldn't define God as the greatest maximally being, or state it is possible for a MGB to exist. This would obviously be a huge problem for the ontological argument. How in the world can this be irrelevant? Pro does not see the irrelevance in his response. It doesn’t matter if Maydole gave us understanding of “greater than” because that’s not the argument. Pro then asks, if I let the OA proponent assume a perfect theory of greatness, why did I use it? This again, is more evidence of of Pro’s strawman fallacy. I want everyone to notice, Pro dropped his original 1.2 response titled ,“My Opponent, William Rowe, and Begging the Question” in which he clearly strawmanned my argument. Modal Argument for the Impossibility of God. Pro yet again repeats himself without responding to my objections. In fact, Pro is responding to nothing here. He’s just presenting the Ontological argument again, without trying to touch Ryan Stringer’s argument. “My argument suggests that if God is possible, then God (so defined) must exist.” I know that, Stringer’s argument suggests if it is possible that minds can only exist physically, then God cannot exist. Pro then goes onto say the conclusion follows. This is utterly irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that the conclusion follows because the premises have not been demonstrated. This objection clearly stands. Conclusion Kant’s objection still stands. Pro claimed it was irrelevant, I showed the philosophy of language used by Anselm makes it relevant. Pro ignored that. Pro claimed that we can deduce existence from the definition of God, but not physical things. Pro never demonstrated that was the case, as it’s a special pleading fallacy. Pro repeatedly committed strawman fallacies with my greatness objection. With Ryan Stringer’s argument, he just repeated the Ontological argument, without responding to it. All of my objections still stand, I have demonstrated that the Ontological argument isn’t sufficient evidence for the existence of God. I want to point something out here. Pro in his last round repeatedly called me ignorant. In one section he called me “unbelievably ignorant”. Is this really proper conduct? I feel it’s unfortunate that we began the debate with friendly thanks, but Pro had to end it with bad conduct like this. I’ll leave it up to the voters to decide if I should get the conduct point. Thanks for the debate.