The Ontological Argument is Sound

I have never spent so much time thinking about the ontological argument as I have since my last post. I slept with it last night, ate breakfast with it this morning, and it shadowed me at work as well. Given your definition of omniscience, I do see the validity of your argument against my paradox. Given only my definition one can see the paradox as possible. "Rather what Con must do, is show is that a maximally great being is logically incoherent," This would be true if I was staying on that line of attack, but it is clearer to me than it was yesterday that upon reaching a logically incoherent version of maximally great that it crosses the boundary of counter-factual as well. Given that no guideline was set forth by the creator of this debate I find it both reasonable and prudent to change my opening point of focus. In my opening I noted "...it is then argued that all follow validly from there." For an argument to be sound it must be valid and the premises must be true. The more I think about this the more I find my self looking at all the possible meanings of "possible". POSSIBLE 1 a : being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization b : being what may be conceived, be done, or occur according to nature, custom, or manners 2 a : being something that may or may not occur b : being something that may or may not be true or actual 3 : having an indicated potential [1] :edit Just about to post this I, see pro has answered my request in the comment. I thank you pro for this. The definition of possible in line 1 is said to be "Something that's true in some non-actual or actual world." ...What is a non actual world? an actual world exists, a non actual world would be fiction. So possible is some thing that is true in reality(the name for our actual world) or it is true in some fictional world. I see no difference between this and definition 2. The "or" in pro's definition does not show that a MGB must actually exist. MGB like Santa may only actually exist in a non-actual world. (see argument below) end of edit: It would seem this word is used many times here with different meanings. In line 1 possible may mean definition 1a realization 1b conceived, in other words one may think...but what good is this one may think many false things too. In line 1 possible may mean definition 2b if it means this the reasoning is fallacious as the premise would be both true and false, law of non-contradiction. In line 1 possible may mean definition 3 but then what is the indicated potential? the only level of potential that would show this to be sound would be 100% since any less would be suggesting the first premise may or may no be true. Also the ontological argument references no other outside ideas and the only way indicated potential could reach 100% would be to reference the conclusion, line 6, circular reasoning. It would seem to a self taught man like myself that the use of definition 1 can not lead to premise 1 being seen as actually true, but rather only believed to be true. the use of definition 2 and 3 seems to create a conflict with the law of non-contradiction with god both having an incalculable likelihood of existing and not existing. It boils down to, the first line of the argument, both "could god actually exist" and "could god actually not exist" line 1 allows both to be answer yes. Contradictory claims can not both be true. I find it hard in my mind to see how the pro will defeat my argument and show that line 1 does not have issue with the law of non-contradiction. pro having a graduate degree according to his profile is may have knowledge on how the law of on contradiction does not come into play here and be able to show my case to be wrong, if done i ask that pro show which usage of possible is use in each line. It is at this point that I hope to remind the voters the what the pro and con positions mean. The statement is "The ontological argument is sound". The pro position therefor should be the assertion that it is indeed sound. the con position should be that it is not sound. Has pro shown it to be actually sound or has pro decided to forgo his BoP and taken the much weaker stance that it may be sound until otherwise proven? (If need be I do have an argument that focuses mainly on line 3 not presented at this time due to limited character space left, that I may present in the next round if the above argument is refuted and I find no fruit among the usage of possible in the 6 lines) [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...