God exits

My opponent demonstrates an extraordinary amount of logical errors, not to mention spelling/grammatical ones. The debate title itself which is fundamental is incoherent. Therefore, it is necessary to guess the topic title through inductive means. Using such means, the topic title is probably a spelling mistake (figures) and you actually mean "God exists". I have also concluded that there is someone eating the punctuations.This might suggest an equal burden of proof. However, my opponent's introduction suggests otherwise, My opponent holds belief in an argument and makes a challenge to disprove it.There are multiple definitions of "God". The only characteristic I can deduce from my opponent's excuse for an argument is omnipotence which is stated in point 5. I will assume that this is the definition of God my opponent means, an omnipotent being. That does not mean he is benevolent or omniscient.So the burden of proof is tilted to your side since the whole idea behind this debate seems to be "Disprove this argument". I apologize if I was inaccurate thus far, correct me if that is the case.My opponent takes this is a serious and rational argument. However, he did not realize that this argument is a parody, this can be cited by his own source [1] that categorizes this argument in the subsection of: "Parodies of Ontological Arguments". Great, so we know what term the parody reefers to. The Ontological argument of God can be even older than Descartes who also used it. This is a modern version by Alvin Plantinga: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. He assumes the existence of potentially infinite number of worlds, realities, multiverses. You know, the stuff used to dismiss the fine tuning argument. The assumption is legit since we cannot prove our own reality really exists. Therefore, if the existence of an omnipotence entity is logical, then it is a possibility that can exist. Therefore, if it is possible for an omnipotence being to exist in a reality then he must exist in all realities including ours.I don't expect an argument against the points from 2 to 5 as they are related to omnipotent. To disprove this argument you must disprove premise one, that it is not possible for an omnipotent being to exist.My opponent also makes the assumption that the argument is rational. Which is quite ridiculous. In fact, I will do it in a snap:"We can conceive a greater being"namely, one who created everything while not existing". There you go, a premise is found to be illogical. Therefore, we cannot reach the conclusion whatever it is with the said argument.Ex nihilo nihil fit, Nothing comes from nothing. That is a principle that is agreed upon from early philosophy till now. Calling Something "Nothing" is an oxymoron and a self-refuting statement, if it is the lack of something then nothing is still something, it is simply not anything.I shall go through my opponent's poor argument:i found a new argument that porves god doesnt exist although i think we all know that by now we should be beyond worshipping some invisible sky fairy but some religious people insits on doing so anyway so this new philosophicle proof shows beyond a doubt god is not realOk.. I.. Uh... *Rereading*... *Cough*.First, I would like to congratulate my opponent for finding an argument online. Indeed, the internet have started the golden age of ill and illogical arguments. it is relatively easy to find them.My opponent makes the irrational assumption that we are all knowledgeable in something, but it is impossible to prove that statement. He also commits an Appeal to Novelty, which is claiming that something is better because it is more modern. However that have nothing to do with validity, and how did he conclude that atheism is not older than theism and we went beyond that point? He also seems to make a generalization, I am no expert at mythical creatures, but I do not recall any type of fairies being associated with powers as strong as universe-creating, this does seems to be a strawman or hasty generalization. He then... Ah... Give me a second to reread through that stuff *rereads*... OK, so the argument was made by Douglas Gasking [1] (1911–1994). My opponent have an interesting concept of "new". My opponent is so convinced by this ground-breaking argument. However, I will demonstrate that it is baseball bat made out of sponge. 1. The creation of the world is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.That statement is subjective. Thus, can't be used as a fact. Even if no one managed to imagine a more marvelous achievement, that does not mean that feat is not possible, we just cannot determine a finishing line, and it is a fallacy from multiple standpoints to do so. Not only is this a subjective statement in a deductive argument, it is also a relative statement without mentioning the relation. "Imaginable" to who? Humans? God?2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.The definition is reasonable.3. The greater the disability or handicap of the creator, the more impressive the achievement. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.That absolutely does not work in case the creator was omnipotent as weakness is contradicted by omnipotence. No matter how much you subtract from infinite as a value, it remains infinite. So an omnipotent God would be the strongest entity in existence, and logically weakness would have no place in his characteristics.Second of all, we have no scale to compare this achievement with. Perhaps this is a non-impressive achievement to even a non-omnipotent god. The author irrationally assumes that this is the ultimate achievement in existance. Alright, lets play with his game, even if that is the best achievement imaginable and it has a value. The value is still limited (Not an omni-value?). How does this measure the potency of a non-omnipotent God? His powers can be dozens of times the value of this "Ultimate Imaginable Achievement", if a non-omnipotent God have the ability to create a more impressive achievement does not mean he have the imagination to do so.And last but not least, a non-existent creator would have the achievement value of absolute zero.4. Therefore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being"namely, one who created everything while not existing.lol wut?5. An existing God, therefore, would not be a being than which a greater cannot be conceived, because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.Really? How do you explain that I am greater being than a non-existent God? If not anything qualifies as God, then everything that is existent also qualifies as God as they have a higher value and potency. Therefore, I have completed my resolution assuming that nothing is great enough to be considered a God.The author based this argument on false equivalence. In fact, this argument works in favor of confirming that God exists. A being who creates everything while not existing is a logical impossibility, for the argument to be compared to the idea of God, it must be proven that the idea of God is incoherent and as impossible as "Nothing creates everything". The argument only reinforces that if the universe was created, it would need a creator. Thus, God would a neccessity in that case.You said any rational person would agree. Definition of rational?[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...