The Ontological Argument proves that God exists!

Ave!Arguments that Con dropped- Aquinas’s criticism of Anselm- X, Y, and Z trait argument- Foreknowledge and Free will paradox- Hume’s criticism of a priori reasoningA PrioriIn my last round, I tried to show that Aquinas didn’t fully understand the purpose of the ontological argument. You don’t have to know everything about god. You just have to know that he has all great-making properties to the maximal extent.Con does not respond to this objection. All we get is a vague criticism of Plantinga using semantics. We’re never given any reason to think that my rebuttal of Aquinas was invalid.Con also continues to repeat, like a mantra, that A priori reasoning can’t be used. His justification for this was to quote David Hume. But I’ve already responded to Hume! Con never answers to my criticism of Hume, and just repeats that A priori reasoning is invalid by way of bare assertion! I’ll further bolster my criticism of Hume as we wait for Con to give an answer.Following Plantinga, I think it's plausible to distinguish between strictly logical necessity and broadly logical necessity. If P is necessary in the strictly logical sense, we might say that P is in compliance with the rules of logic, or P is such that its denial entails a contradiction. If Q is necessary in the broadly logical sense, we can say that Q is metaphysically necessary, or that Q exists in all possible worlds. Hume’s claim doesn’t appear to recognize or be sensitive to the latter modality. So, when a theist affirms that God is a necessary being, he is not affirming that God is necessary in the strictly logical sense, or that denying His existence entails a contradiction. Rather, he is affirming that He is necessary in the broadly logical sense, or that He exists in all possible worlds. A being can exist in all possible worlds and yet be such that denying its existence doesn’t entail a contradiction.Omniscience and Omnipotence Since Con dropped his last paradox, he tries to set up a new one, this time using omniscience and omnipotence to show that god’s nature is contradictory. If god could create new information that he doesn’t already know, then he’s not omniscient because he doesn’t know everything. Like Con’s last paradox, this is easy to solve.Omniscience is the ability to know everything that is logically possible to know. God couldn’t know information that doesn’t exist yet, because it’s not logically possible to know that*. When god uses his omnipotence to create new information, god just has to know the information the moment it’s created. Because he’s omniscient, he would know the information the moment it’s created. That’s how you reconcile omnipotence with omniscience.*If you knew of information that didn’t exist, it would have to exist.God’s Mercy and God’s JusticeCon’s response is to argue, by way of bare assertion, that I’m manipulating the properties of god to fit the ontological argument. We’re never given any reason to think that I’ve done such a thing. Besides, this is just a personal attack rather than a criticism of the argument.Other than this, we just see Con repeat that A priori reasoning is invalid. Nowhere do we any criticism of my attempt to reconcile maximal mercy with maximal justice.Kant’s and Gasking’s ObjectionIf you are going to parody the logic of an argument, then you have to accurately mirror the logic of that argument in order for it to work. Otherwise, you’re not actually parodying the argument. Gasking’s parody fails because it doesn’t have anything to do with the logic of the ontological argument beyond the superficial. Con doesn’t respond to my criticism of Gasking’s argument because he says that it was meant to be a parody. But even as a parody, it doesn’t work.Con never answers to my criticism of Kant as well. He just says that I use A priori reasoning, which he’s already debunked. As I pointed out earlier, Con hasn’t responded to my criticism of Hume yet. How can he say that A priori reasoning has been debunked as a valid method of reasoning?Hallquist’s CriticismHallquist is just setting up a straw man. The ontological argument doesn’t say that if something is possible, it must actually exist. It argues that, if a MGB is possible, then it must exist. It can only be applied to a being that exists in all possible worlds, if it exists. It does not apply to anything you can think of, like a conjecture or LeprechaunsSolipsismWe have good reasons to think that solipsism isn’t true, however. If everything is the product of the solipsists mind, then all information would be the product of the solipsists mind. If all information were the product of the solipsists mind, then the solipsist couldn’t learn any new information. However, the solipsist does learn new information every day. Therefore, not everything is the product of the solipsists mind!Anyways, P3 is logically valid. A maximally great being, in order to be maximally great, would have to exist in all possible worlds. There’s nothing controversial about saying this. The only way to refute P3 is to show there is no possible world a maximally great being exists, which Con hasn’t done.Vale!