Existence of a God

Rebuttal: “Just a few things before I go any further, Con’s subtle bashing on my grammar made me little confused. Although I appreciate Con pointing my grammar to improve later, I would like to point out that those were phrases, not sentences, summarized from a few chapters of the Ontological Argument. ” I just read through my response again, I did not make any bashing of your grammar. The only thing I said that could be interpreted that way was this. “What if you substitute God out for an infinite number of things, (and change a few words to make it grammatically correct)? By definition, this donut is an object than which none greater can be imagined. ” I meant change my sentence to make it grammatically correct. Because if I substituted donut in it would be grammatically incorrect. I had to change being to object to make it grammatically correct, sorry for the confusion. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined. “I fail to see how this, in any way, is a rebuttal. My opponent declares the entire argument as “strange” and then leaves off with a question. ” That is not what happened at all. Read my rebuttal and you will see what I did. “Well, that argument is clearly false since a donut is not a supreme being. Yes, substituting god with anything will make the Anselm’s argument false, only because you cannot substitute anything else besides a supreme being in the first place! My opponent argument makes no sense because he is substituting an object that is not a supreme being, since the argument is solely in regards to a supreme being! ” Ok, calm down there my friend. I did not mean that the donut is a supreme being, I meant that the donut is supreme, in that it is perfect. You could also substitute out donut for something more abstract, a living, neon pink, time-traveling, African American, rubber band, KKK member that wears Old Spice t,. And the argument still proves that this must exist. This argument gives off strange answers and should be thrown out. “I found my opponent very confusing since he is calling something that should be true, absurd. Let’s say that we have an item, Let’s call it item “A”. In order for item A to exist, it must have the properties X,Y,and Z. Now, lets say that item A, by definition possess the properties X,Y, and Z. Therefore, item A must exist since it posses the properties X,Y, and Z by definition alone. The same concept is with god if we take perfection and existence into play. ” Let’s say that this living, neon pink, time-traveling, African American, rubber band, KKK member that wears Old Spice requires a rubber band, neon pink paint and Old Spice. Since all of these exist, then this being has to exist. This is obviously a stupid proposition, but according to your logic, this must exist. If you are willing to accept that this argument proves God, then you must be also willing to accept that this rubber band exists, or any other type of anything you can think of can exist. “I believe that my opponent may have misinterpreted that argument. The point that I am trying to convey is, if god exists, then he exists in some possible place. Such as a planet or a part of the universe, etc. If god exists in a possible place, then he exists in all those possible places. If he exists in all the possible places, then he exists in reality, because reality is possible and within possibility. ” Oh, I’m sorry, I did misinterpret the argument, my bad. You make the unsupported assumption that God must exist in some part of the universe. If you say something exists, you must prove it. Prove that God exists in some part of the universe, then you argument will hold water. “Absurdity in my opponent’s point of view, does not exactly mean fallacy. Furthermore, he calls the arguments absurd for the pure reason of they appeared to be this way. ” I only said that once my friend, no need to make it a big deal. And I called it a fallacy because if the argument starts proving that time-traveling rubber bands exist, which is absurd, it should be regarded as a fallacy. Conclusion: I look forward to the result of this debate.