God Is Existent

I apologize for the late response. == Overview ==Pro *continues* dropping some already dropped points, and part of his argument is plagiarized, as I shall note. I thank Pro for their final arguments. Pro must waive R4. == Rebuttal ==R1) Ontological Argumenta) Pro has entirely dropped his initial MOA of R1, dropping all my refutations to it. I extend all my rebuttals related to his modal ontological argument to this round. b) Greatness is not exemplified by existence unless proven so. Being non-existent does not reduce a subjective property such as "greatness", which, sans a standard, has no objective justification, thus can be entirely discounted. I did not drop this point, as Pro asserts, but showed that the property of "greatness" is not necessarily exemplified by existence. The core assumption that existence is a "predicate" is made, and is subject to Kant's refutation of it. In R1, Pro asserts that Kant's argument is made void by the MOA, but since Pro *drops* MOA, this is still subject to Kant's objection, viz. something non-existent cannot have attributes. [1] A reductio ad absurdum can be made via. a unicorn:P1: Let us define a unicorn as a magical equine being that has one horn, and that exists.P2: Such a being "exists" by definition, and, therefore, must exist. C: Therefore, a unicorn exists. The above syllogism follows the exact same logic but achieves an absurd conclusion. This entirely refutes the structure of the Anselm OA. [2]The core assumption made in this argument is that the concept of God is equated with the concept of "great", which may suffer an objection via non-cognitivism, or may confuse two separate issues:1. If compared to every other object, God is greater. 2. The greatest thing is arbitrarily labeled "God". One could argue that the "greatest object" must exist necessarily, but this argument commits use-mention error by changing the definitions. [2, 3]c) Pro asserts that the 4th and 5th axioms are quite "self-explanatory", but this is a bare assertion. The property of being God-like is *not* necessarily a positive property, and the concept of being "positive" is only justified subjectively, but objective justification is necessary for the axioms to be justified. Pro *drops* my refutations to the 4th and 5th axioms, and continues assuming things without justification. Pro *drops* argument from non-cognitivism. R2) Cosmological Argumenta) Breaking laws does not mean "things like the zero universe and said series cannot possibly be correct". This is irrelevant to breaking laws. The zero-energy universe hypothesis is confirmed by the flat curvature of the universe, and we know by a chance of error of 0.6% that it is accurate, and, even otherwise, remains logically consistent with existing laws. [4, 5] This completely refutes Pro's assertion that it is false. b) Pro makes many bare assertions here - that physical laws being broken somehow implies the zero-energy universe hypothesis being false, and so on. Pro also *drops* my argument that sans physical laws and time things no longer need causes and the causal principle breaks down. Pro *drops* eternalism. R3) Teleological ArgumentThis *entire* refutation is irrelevant to the teleological argument. Pro merely seems to extend his ontological argument, and I have *already* refuted the entirety of the ontological argument. The S5 axiom is subject to reverse MOA and reductio ad absurdum, which Pro *drops*. The MGB does not, in any manner, have to "exist" in order to be considered great. Pro *drops* all my refutations of the teleological argument, and I extend them to this round. R4) Occam's razora) Pro's interpretation of Occam's razor is precisely identical to mine - Pro himself writes, "the best way to evaluate a theory is to start from the simplest possible explanation and make it more complex only if, and when, absolutely necessary." I have demonstrated that God is not necessary, and, therefore, it is demonstrated that God is a complex explanation when it is *not required*. b) Pro has *plagiarized* much of his refutation to Occam's razor from another debate. [6] Such plagiarism is rarely considered acceptable conduct in any debate setting, and I request voters to penalize it. c) Pro *completely drops* the incoherence of a caused universe and argument from atemporal minds, so presume Con. == Summary ==(1) Ontological ArgumentPro constantly makes the key assumption that a maximally great being would have to exist to be considered "maximally great", but that is a bare assertion and lacks justification. This also commits use-mention error. [2] Pro *drops* the modal ontological argument, and continues asserting Godel OA with no justification, so presume Con. (2) Cosmological ArgumentPro *entirely drops* P1, with no justification given, and asserts that the zero-energy universe is false without any justification. Drops "pool table" defense. I have soundly refuted the KCA. (3) Teleological ArgumentPro merely extends ontological argument, drops prescribed-attributed distinction, and does not, in any way, attempt to demonstrate objective telos. Extends MOA without refuting my points. (4) Occam's razorPro plagiarizes and takes same position on Occam's razor as me, entirely drops incoherence of a caused universe and argument from atemporal minds, so presume Con. == Conclusion ==Pro plagiarizes, drops multiple arguments, and does not refute any of my points adequately. I have refuted all Pro's arguments, and shown via the argument from atemporal minds and incoherence of a caused universe that the concept of God is incoherent. Pro also agrees with me on Occam's razor, and, thus, drops all my points regarding the same. The resolution is resoundingly negated. Vote Con. Pro must waive R4. == Sources ==[1]: http://plato.stanford.edu...[2]: http://wiki.ironchariots.org...[3]: http://reasonablesoup.blogspot.co.uk...[4]: http://www.astrosociety.org...[5]: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...[6]: http://www.debate.org...