God doesn't exist.

Thanks Toviyah for your opening arguments. Now on to the rebuttals! (: Definitions Analytic proposition: Propositions that describe the interplay between ideas and definitions. Synthetic proposition: A model statement about the external world. Before Toviyah presents his argument, he says: “I'm going to present a single argument which will prove the existence of God as defined.” OK. Right off the bat we have a problem. Pure logical deduction cannot generate rote facts about the external world. Logic only tells us if the words we use to describe things are well-behaved. When Toviyah says “God exist” he’s making a synthetic proposition, which cannot be proven. I just wanted to throw that out there. The argument my friend has put forth in this debate is the Modal Ontological Argument. This argument tries to establish the existence of God from the very concept of God itself. It says that if the existence of God is even possible, then God has to exist. The reason for that is because God is said to be a maximally great being with all the perfections. If this being were to exist contingently, then he would not be maximally great. Therefore he must exist necessarily. Necessary existence means existence in all possible worlds. Possible worlds are hypothetical situations. If something is possible, then we say it exist in some possible worlds. If something is impossible, then we say it exist in no possible worlds. So Toviyah’s argument could be summarized as follows: Premise 1) If it’s possible that God (a maximally great being) exists, then God exist in some possible world. Premise 2) Therefore God would exist in all possible worlds. Premise 3) Therefore God would exist in the actual world. Conclusion) Therefore if God’s existence is possible, God exist. Now I will put forth an equally strong ontological argument against God’s existence. Atheist Ontological Argument Premise 1) If a world without minds is possible, God is impossible. Premise 2) A world without minds is possible. Conclusion) Therefore God is impossible. If one of the possible worlds has no minds in it, then God can’t exist in that world. After all, he is a being with a mind. This atheist ontological argument alone shows that my friend Toviyah’s ontological argument for God’s existence fails. However, I would like to provide another reason for why this argument doesn’t work. Firstly, we must realize that if we can establish the existence of God in this manner, then one can also establish the existence of ANYTHING using completely parallel arguments. For example: Ontological Argument for Perfect Island Premise 1) It is possible that a maximally great island exists. Premise 2) If it is possible that a maximally great island exists then it exists in some possible world. Premise 3) If a maximally great island exists in some possible world then it exists in all possible worlds. Conclusion) Therefore a maximally great island exists in the actual world. Ontological Argument for Perfect Beer Premise 1) It is possible that a maximally great beer exists. Premise 2) If it is possible that a maximally great beer exists then it exists in some possible world. Premise 3) If a maximally great beer exists in some possible world then it exists in all possible worlds. Conclusion) Therefore a maximally great beer exists in the actual world. Ontological Argument for Perfect Teenager Premise 1) It is possible that a maximally great teenager exists. Premise 2) If it is possible that a maximally great teenager exists then it exists in some possible world. Premise 3) If a maximally great teenager exists in some possible world then it exists in all possible worlds. Conclusion) Therefore a maximally great teenager exists in the actual world. Conclusion In my first round of rebuttals I have demonstrated that the Ontological argument is weak and fails to establish the existence of God. Back to you Toviyah! (: