The Ontological Argument

I will start by addressing his intro and conclusion and then move on to his actual argument. Let's begin. "This argument is used very little amongst Christians who defend the faith, and I see why, as it seems like very abstract reasoning. But despite this, I think it is a very convincing argument once you think about it. " I completely disagree with that. True, I am an atheist so I obviously believe that NONE of the arguments for the existence of God are convincing, but to me, this one sticks out as particularly unconvincing. Probably because, to my knowledge, no one has ever been convinced by it. "Now in order for Con to dismantle this argument, Con must explain why the existence of a Supreme Being is impossible. .. " No, absolutely not. This is a very weird burden of proof to put on me. The only thing I have to do to dismantle the argument is to demonstrate that it is either unsound (the premises are not all true) or invalid. "why the concept of such a being is logically absurd, and I don't think anyone can do this. " This I will try to do. Now on to the argument. "1. God, by definition, is a maximally great being that exists necessarily" Saying that God is a being that exists necessarily is assuming the conclusion, which is a form of circular reasoning. It is basically saying "since God exists necessarily, then God exists". With this premiss, I do not see the use of anything else. "By "great", it is meant that God has certain attributes as omnipotence, omniscience, ominpresence, and omnibenevolence" This definition of God (assuming that omnipotence is only limited by logic) is completely defeated by the problem of evil. Freewill does not solve the issue by the way. I will wait for the explanation of 2, 3 and 4 before addressing them. "5. Therefore, God exists. " There is a big problem with the conclusion. Saying that Item X has attribute Y only means: "if X exists, then it is Y". Considering this, the conclusion becomes: "If God exists, then God exists", which is a useless tautology. "Explanation of #1: The word "great" here is used to define a "quality" of existence. Those attributes are "great making" qualities. So to have maximally great knowledge is to know EVERYTHING (omniscience). To have a maximally great presence is to be EVERYWHERE at one time (omnipresence). To have maximally great power is to be able to do ANYTHING that is logically possible (omnipotence). " I agree that omniscience and omnipotence are the pinnacle of greatness, and I will also grant omnipresence for the sake of argument. "And to be a maximally great benevolent person is to be the ultimate source for what it means to have a good moral character (omnibenovelent). " While I agree that omnibenevolence is the pinnacle of greatness (when we are considering conscious beings), I have a bit of trouble imagining how it is possible to be objectively moral. Depending on your definition of morality, objective morality may not actually exist. But the problem with greatness is that it is not limited by the four omnis, it can imply a whole lot of other things which would actually "prove" that this particular God does not exist, such as:1) A maximally great being would save JFK2) JFK was not saved3) A maximally great being does not exist1) A maximally great being would make his existence apparent2) His existence is not apparent3) This maximally great being does not existAnyone can think up many of these examples. "Explanation of #2: Simply means that we can imagine a world at which a maximally great being could exist. If such a being "could" exist, then its a least possible for it to exist. " In a world where there is no evil, I would probably agree. "Explanation of #3: If a maximally great being could exist in a world that we don't know about, then that same maximally great being would have to exist in THIS world. Because remember, to be a maximally great being is to be omnipresent, so if a maximally great being is present in another world, this same being would also have to be present in this world. If a maximally great being does not exist in this world, then this being was never maximally great, because if it was, there would be no limitations to where it could be present. " I'll grant that for now. "So a maximally great being would have to exist in this world if it was possible that it could exist in another world. " No. The fact that it is POSSIBLE for this being to exist in some possible does not mean that it actually DOES exist in some possible and therefore it does NOT have to exist in our world. The second premiss of this modus ponen is lacking:Normally, we have:1) If A, then B2) A3) Therefore BBut my opponent presented:1)If A, then B2) Therefore BThis is invalid. "Explanation of #4: We can all admit that it is at least possible for a maximally great being to exist in another possible world. So if it exists in another possible world, it would have to exist in this world. " Yes, I will grant that IF it exists in some possible worlds, then it exists in this world. "If it is possible for a maximally great being to exist in this world, then a maximally great being DOES exist in this world. " Absolutely not. Possibility does not imply actuality. Moreover, I have yet to be convinced that existence is an attribute of greatness. One could argue that it is greater for something to transcend reality, therefore not being a part of reality (therefore not actually being real). "Remember, the existence of a maximally great being would be a NECESSARY truth, meaning that it would be impossible for this being to NOT exist in ANY world. " I reject that outright. This is simply a semantic trick that tries to define God as something that exists. Using the same trick, I could define the realicorn as "a unicorn that actually exists". Would realicorns then really exist? Obviously not. I await my opponent's responses.