God does not exist.

Opening RemarksBurden of proof accepted.Constructive ArgumentWhy not use some Ontological Argument? (I poached the syllogism from one of KeytarHero's debates [1])P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.P1 is true if a maximally great being can possibly exist, and as there is no glaring incoherence in a maximally great being that would make it's existence impossible, one would be justified in believing that a maximally great being can possibly exist.P2 is true if P1 is true, as if a maximally great being can possibly exist, then it obviously exists in some possible world.It is greater to exist in every possible world than only some possible worlds, so P3 makes sense. P4 follows from P3 in that if P3 is true, than there is no possible world in which a maximally great being does not exist. Since the actual world is clearly a possible world, if there is no possible world without a maximally great being, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world.P5 is clearly true because something that exists in the actual world exists.The conclusion follows, therefore a maximally great being which we can call 'God' exists.RebuttalsContention 1. Premise 2 is true. What number would we assign to maximal greatness? No matter what number you say, there is always a number that is greater, and therefore we can always imagine something greater. Infinity isn't a number.Reply to Contention 1. I don't know what number we would assign to maximal greatness, but to say that the lack of knowledge of exactly what quantity it would be somehow implies it's impossibility would be fallacious. My opponent has not addressed my argument at all, which I will now restate.Premise 1: Maximal quantity is a quantityPremise 2: You cannot add to a maximal quantityConclusion: You cannot always add to a quantityPremise 2 is the only premise that ought to be controversial in any sense, if my opponent rejects premise one he's gone off the deep end.Premise 2 is true by virtue of the definition of maximal quantity as I argued in the second round. The word 'maximal' means 'Of or constituting a maximum; of the greatest possible size, duration, or capacity.' [2]. If you can increase the size of the maximal quantity, it's obviously not of the greatest possible size, because if it can possibly be increased, and the increased size would be larger. This ought to be self-evident, which is possibly why my opponent seemingly evaded this entirely.As I think the conclusion follows from the premises, my opponent's premise 2 is false and his argument is therefore unsound.Contention 2. Say it in your own words.Reply to Contention 2. Oh great irony. Creation from nothing does not affect anything. Affecting something would be changing it, but creation from nothing is not properly able to be considered 'change'. To change something, you modify it's properties, but something that doesn't exist has no properties to modify.If my opponent wishes to argue that creation necessarily entails change, then I could always argue that the raw materials of the universe always existed and God created the universe by changing the raw materials.ConclusionI'm really taking my time posting these rounds, sorry.Sources:1. http://debate.org...2. Oxford English Dictionary