Ontological arguments make God's existence at least slightly more likely

I am not sure what Pro intended from this meeting, but it appears that Pro didn't defend the OA, but rather some of the initial assertions he originally made. I will address those comments and also show why Pro's OA is not sound. R1: Ontological or Not Ontological, that's the question! I don't want to complicate this debate for the reader unnecessarily. Pro's first round was very unclear, and it was hard to decipher the argument. However, I did detect some kind of an OA in the end, so I'll simply concede this point to Pro. The problem remains: Pro's OA as I explained previously (and again here) is simply not sound. Rebuttal: Existence by Effect Did Pro just concede the debate? Pro argues that he provided a proof of "Existence by effect". If this is true, then Pro simply proved that God doesn't exist! How? I'll show it here: P1: God existed before all things (Definition – See Round 1) P2: Existence is by effect (Pro's assertion) P3: If God exists, then God existed by effect (from P2) P4: If God existed before all things, the God didn't exist by effect (because there was no effect before it to effect it) P5: God didn't exist by effect (P1, P4) C1: God doesn't exist (P3, P5) R2: Clarification of Existence and the Elements of the Simplest Existent Thing Pro struggles with the definition of existence, arguing: "irritation arises from an insufficient definition of "Existence" with which to judge something's potential for being". I think the reason it's difficult to define is simply because the definition is very basic and very intuitive. We don't need to explain to the reader what actual existence is. However, the best definition to existence is "to have an objective reality" [1]. Pro again defines "to exist" is "to effect (and be effected by) another existent thing". This is not the definition of existence. What Pro is attempting to argue is that all objective things have the property of cause and effect. I wish that Pro explained this plainly. So I'll add an initial premise to Pro's OA: All existent things (or beings) effect other existent things (or beings) This premise actually proves that God is not a creator! Why? Because if God only affects "existent things" then He couldn't have created them, since they already exist. Again, for the sake of Pro, he should redefine his premise: All existent things (or beings) effect other existent things (or beings) Pro can argue that this argument is valid (or likely) by pleading to the law of causality. However, Pro made a poor defense point. He challenged me to give an example of something that exists and yet does not affect another existent thing. If I fail to do so, he argues that his argument would be true. I want to caution Pro and the reader from this type of argumentation. First, Pro is attempting to shift the Burden of Proof but he's the one who's making the truth claim. Second, his argument is called an argument from ignorance [2] (When one argues that something is true because it's not proven false). However, for the sake of this debate, I will simply concede to Pro that the law of causality is true. Why not? This doesn’t change anything! R3: Elements of Existence The basketball example is a terrible example. Pro argues that "Even though a lone person could play basketball, he will never find himself actually playing basketball". The same applies to his argument "Even though a lone thing could exist, it will never find itself actually existing". That's completely absurd! It doesn't make any sense whatsoever! If a lone thing exists, then it simply exists (objectively, rationally and actually)! Pro's argument should be completely dismissed. And by Pro's assertion, it means that God couldn't have existed entirely by Himself if He chose to! I don't know any theist whatsoever who believes such a thing. Please dismiss this argument. R4: Isolated Infinitesimal Pro argues that an isolated infinitesimal simply cannot exist. He provides a long syllogism which is completely unnecessary. Basically, Pro argues that something cannot exist entirely by itself (which I explained what that's a bare assertion and doesn't make sense). He follows than an isolated infinitesimal couldn't exist, because well… it's isolated! I mentioned the example of God, and because He is omnipotent, He could exist entirely alone (Isolated from anything else). Anyways, this argument is not only absurd, it's completely irrelevant! Conclusion How does Pro's argument show that God exists! His OA was filled (and still filled) with fallacies. Please see Round 2. Pro didn't challenge any of my arguments there. I am baffled! Sources [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://rationalwiki.org...