The Ontological Argument is Sound

It is my position that the Ontological argument is not sound. The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy states: "A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. "[1] The Ontological argument relies on the first premiss it is then argued that all follow validly from there. The first premise relies on definition stacked on top of definition the root of which is "great making properties" poorly and incompletely defined as: things like omniscience, omnipotence, moral perfection, etc. This is where i will focus. The assertion: "But we can gradually discover what a great making property is, without undermining the objective notion that God would, by definition, possess all such properties. " there are 2 ways of looking at this. The simple way: Items noted to be great making properties are only asserted as such and not demonstrated to actually be as such, thus premise 1 can not be shown to be true or false and as a result by definition is unsound the complex way if falsified, it would show that no being could be maximally excellence and maximally great. We should be aware of the paradoxes behind the idea of omnipotence, but there are 2 definitions in Websters dictionary for omnipotence. The one the pro may favor is "the quality or state of being omnipotent". One of the definition of omnipotent ": having virtually unlimited authority or influence". This negates the paradoxes including the paradox created by omniscience limiting power. I will therefor focus on the fact that omniscience can not exist. If it can not exist then god can not have it and thus not be maximally excellent or great because he would be missing one of the great making properties. OMNISCIENCE : the quality or state of being omniscient [2] OMNISCIENT 1: having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight 2: possessed of universal or complete knowledge [3] the problem: Unknown unknowns. [4] A being conventionally labeled as omniscience would still be unable to know how many or what things it did not know that it did not know. Even if all that it did not know what that the set of unknown unknowns was an empty set save for the fact that it would not know that it was. As a result no being could be said to have infinite knowledge or possess universal or complete knowledge. as a result could not actually be omniscient by definition. the label is therefore false No being can escape the paradox of omniscience. It follows that god would be lacking one of the known great making properties, falsifying "God would, by definition, possess all such properties. " God can not be, by refute, what god is said to be, by definition. The law of non-contradiction comes into effect. God can not be a maximally great being and not maximally great being at the same time. this paradox can not possibly exist. The first premise is proven false. As stated at the start soundness requires the reasoning to be valid and the premises to be true. The first premiss fails, the argument is unsound. (I will note there is a rebuttal that suggests that this maximally great being may only exist as a concept in ones head or be the non interacting deist God but this argument is not about soundness but rather importance. )(also the lack of specification means that the specific actions are unknowable since we can not look at the immoral actions of any particular god and refute the moral perfection claim, this also means one can not use this argument to prove the god of any particular religion. ) [1]. http://www.iep.utm.edu... [2]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] . http://www.brainyquote.com...