That the Descartes Ontological argument is sound

I'm going to do something very drastic. I'm going to start by assuming that god/perfection DOES NOT EXIST. 1. G does not have EX Now step two is the one my opponent is having some trouble with. I personally believe the invisible pink unicorn does not exist. That does not mean the invisible pink unicorn is not invisible, nor does it mean it is not pink, nor does it mean it is not a unicorn - it simply means it does not exist. Here is step 2 (I'm going to do some more justifications in a second): 2. God has P This is NOT the same as presupposing God. It is simply saying what it is I am describing as being non-existent - a perfect entity. I continue to assume that the entity is non-existent even as I have ascribed a quality to it. My opponent's criticism here is akin to saying the apple I wish I had right now is not red because it doesn't presently exist. existence is no predicate for quality. I am presupposing that the word "God" means "a perfect entity. " Having said that, however, even as my opponent argues against my "presupposition" of the existence of perfection (which is untrue - what I do is suppose the non-existence of a perfect entity, which is very different), he in fact accepts that God is a (non-existent) perfect entity. For example, he says "God/perfection" rather than "God. " Even if he did not do this, however, the definition is not in and of itself illegitimate because it is not a tautology - logic is required to connect it to the first premise. 3. Everything with P must EX For a detailed discussion of this point, see my last argument with my opponent. 4. Therefore, God cannot have P and EX 5. We know for certain God has P but not EX My opponent has practically conceded that God is perfect (because that's the definition of God - a perfect entity), but not existent. However, he also says that God may or may not exist. Therefore, since only one of the two premises can be true. .. 6. Therefore God has P and EX Because the alternative conclusion is invalid. Note that at no stage in this argument did I presuppose the existence of either God or perfection. We can test this case, as I described last round, by using Descartes' method of alternative-exclusion. My opponent claims he can say God [a perfect entity] does not exist without perfection and existence being mutually exclusive. However, since it is impossible for the sentence to be logically true, it must be logically fallacious. The sentance is impossible to be logically true because it is impossible for a perfect entity to not exist. Let us contrast my six steps with my opponent's five steps he claims I use: 1. G does not have EX; vs ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. Assume perfection/God exists As you can see, my opponent is wrong from the very start. He starts with a claim that is logically opposite - his assumes God exists, mine assumes God does not. So clearly he has not understood the very beginning of the Descartes argument. 2. God has P 3. Everything with P must EX 4. Therefore, God cannot have P and EX 5. We know for certain God has P but not EX; vs ---------------------------------------------------------- 2. It is claimed that God/perfection may not exist 3. Premise 2 contradicts premise 1 As you can see, my opponent misrepresents my contradiction. My contradiction is not a claim of existence against a claim of non-existence, but rather a claim of perfection against non-existence. Now, for once, I'm going to stop looking forward and start looking back. My burden of proof in this debate has been to answer con's objections to the Descartes ontological. I don't think I have merely answered . .. I have annihilated. Two objections have been raised by my opponent. The first (round 1) was that an idea cannot impress actuality. By using the method of alternative-exclusion, I demonstrated exactly how an idea can be said to be actually true even though it is just an idea. My opponent's second line of attack was to rephrase my argument to try to show that I had presupposed God. Just moments ago, I showed that his paraphrasing was inaccurate and indeed the very opposite of what I was arguing. I walked you through exactly what I assume and what I do not. Certainly the conclusion was never assumed in any way. I hope my opponent does not do what he did last time and bring up totally new lines of attack in the last round. I urge voters to read all the arguments carefully and decide whether I have responded to all of my opponent's (two) arguments.