God Exists

He says that in the modal ontological argument there s no reason to assume a maximally great being (one who is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect) exists, but this is pure bullsh1t. Our souls exist [1], that is our ability to be self-conscious. Self consciosness is purely natural; that doesn't provide evidence of a maximally great being.These entities are omniscient of an action before we make them, Omniscient means all knowing. That means that our "souls" would have to know EVERYTHING; not just what we're going to do.omnipotent in what they can cause us to do, So they can cause you to walk across the street and end up on Mars? I think we would've heard about that. The point is that omnipotent means all powerful; our "souls" are limited.and moral agents in that they make us make decisions. Since they exist, there is nothing illogical in saying a maximally great soul could exist.Pro's definition of soul is consciousness. Consciousness can be explained by naturalistic processes. Due to this pro's assertion is illogical because there would have to be electrochemical impulses and sensory organs to cause consciousness. Because these would limit a maximally great being pro has not proven anything.In response to my cosmological argument that time did not exist before the Bi Bang, and because energy= matter at high energy points there was always energy before the Big bang, so there was a medium in which relativistic time did exist. I reject this rebuttal on scientific grounds.Wheeler suspects that our perceived "time" corresponds to the distance from a special point in the four-dimensional timeless space he modelled. If so, that point might mark the apparent beginning of time at the big bang.According to the mathematical model time is an ILLUSION. It also suggests time corresponds to a point in four dimensional timeless space. That means that cause and effect don't apply in the fourth timeless dimensional space where our universe "started." My argument still stands. Con's argument that there is a possibility that chance could account for the fine-tuning resulting from the Big Bang is also silly. It relies on assuming the Big Bang took an infinitesimal amount time to take place to make sure there ws a chance these values could emerge, The "make sure" part doesn't make much sense. There is no need to "make sure" that the constants were possible because they must have been possible or else we wouldn't be here nor would those values have occurred. Pro appears to be operating under the assumption that chance means the universe consciously made sure the values could occur which goes against the very definition of chance. Chance=Random Luck. No "making sure" was involved.but if that were true so much time would have elapsed there would be utter chaos everywhere in the Universe because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.No time would've elapsed because the constants instantaneously appeared. Instead we see galaxies existing everywhere. Chance is not viable explanation of cosmic fine-tuningYes it is; your entire rebuttal is based upon a TERRIBLE strawman of the random chance idea.PRO'S SOURCEPro's source doesn't support his argument. No where in How the Self Controls it's Brain does it suggest that a soul exists. CONCLUSIONNone of pro's arguments work. The first was based on a faulty interpretation of a source plus bad logic. The second was based on a misunderstanding of my argument, and the third was based on a terrible strawman argument. Therefore all my arguments still stand.