It is Logically Impossible that a Maximally Great Being Exists.

Let's wrap this one up =)Pro is still claiming that I'm misunderstanding his argument. The voters will have to decide for themselves if my counters hit the mark or not, but to satisfy Pro, all of my arguments will be in direct response to a quote from his last argument."He can say he has attacked the arguments validity and “internal problems” all he wants, but I don’t see that he has."My #4 objection was clear. If there is a limit to the amount of stars the MGB can create at any one time, then we cannot imagine a greater being as by definition this new being would become the MGB. By arguing that we can always imagine a being that can create 1 more star contradicts his other argument about there being a limit to the number of stars that can be created. Either there is a limit and the MGB must abide by it, or there is no limit and so the MGB can create an infinite amount of stars. Either way, none of this shows that this being's existence is impossible. Since my opponent has failed to address this argument, it stands as a dropped point."As I have demonstrated that both a Universe and a galaxy cannot be infinite in size at any given time" Where? I've yet to see this demonstrated, and furthermore I've sourced webpages outlining how the universe can be infinite in size and many scientists agree the universe might very well be infinite in size. The possibility is there, and since all I had to do was establish the possibility, Pro has already lost this debate."Yet, I clearly stated in the previous round “If we are using the word ‘is,’ then the second premise [the second premise of his simplified version of the argument, that is] is not true, but if we use ‘must be’ then the second premise holds up.”"Pro is now quoting his own assertions as evidence for his argument. This is nonsense. Pro, you have to actually demonstrate why your argument only works given the words "must be", because at this point no meaningful difference has been established. Like I said, this is petty semantics, and in violation of Pro's own rules. "The crux if my defense is not that there is a finite number of stars, but that there must be. I made it pretty clear in the previous round that not only was I proving that there is a finite number of stars, but that there must be a finite number of stars."Once again, if there "must be" a limit, then there "IS" a limit. << This is tautologically true. If there is no limit, then you have no grounds for saying there "must be" a limit. Also, you've just admitted that you were arguing for both, so you've just rendered your own objection moot..."Saying that there is are blue stars to describe how many stars there are makes very little sense indeed"Either Pro didn't understand what I was saying, or he's being deliberately facetious. Infinity =/= blue. Infinity still has a definition. It means "limitless/endless" [1]. You can have a limitless amount of stars if you allow for an endless universe. The concepts fit together, dare I say, logically. However, infinite is not a number according to mathematicians and so Pro's mathematical argument against infinities is patently fallacious. "Additionally, I fail to see how the existence of different cardinalities of infinity has any impact on the existence of an infinite amount of stuff"If it's logically possible to have an infinite amount of infinities, then I've established the logical possibility for infinities, therefore a MGB can be infinite, therefore the resolution is negated."I agree, however the definition to which we agreed does not merely say that a MGB does not use infinite power, but that a MGB cannot use infinite power, as a MGB cannot do what is logically impossible"Once again, even if it's true that infinities can't exist (they can, according to physicists and mathematicians, but just for the sake of argument let's see where this goes), then all you've done is shown that a MGB can't use all his power at once, not that he doesn't exist."This is not a redefinition after my opponent presented a definition, but rather a rejection of the definition based upon a previously agreed upon criteria."Pro hasn't even attempted to prove that infinite power is impossible (all he's argued for is that infinite execution of power is impossible), so for him to argue that the MGB can't be omnipotent because we agreed to constrain this being by logic means either he's changing definitions ex-post facto (rule violation) or he's rooting his argument in a point he hasn't even attempted to argue. Either way, pro loses this point."This is not the case. I clearly explained why this objection is an invalid one, and this explanation was reiterated earlier in this round."No. All Pro did was assert that I misunderstood him, then he proceeded to re-cap his argument. a quick scroll to R3 verifies this. He never mentioned a single specific from my argument. Either he couldn't beat it, or he didn't understand it and just didn't have the sense to ask for clarification. Either way, this argument has been dropped. I understand pro has to say something in his own defence here, but this is clearly a bluff. ConclusionPro set out to prove that a MGB is impossible. This is an incredibly heavy burden to carry, and in the end Pro couldn't carry it. His argument rested on 2 points; 1: infinities can't exist 2: infinite potential can't exist.Pro only attempted to prove the former, which alone fails to fulfill his BoP and therefore even if he established this, he would still lose. If that wasn't bad enough, he completely failed to prove that infinities were impossible. I've provided the framework for how infinities can be possible, so Pro's argument is not only insufficient, but also wrong. As for point 2, the only thing he said about it was an assertion that a limit on the amount of stars that can be made shows a limit to the amount of stars the MGB has the energy to create. I pointed out time and time again that limitations on the universe (creation) is not enough to imply limitation on the MGB (creator). Pro has neglected to respond to this argument, and so he has failed to meet the standard he set for himself to win in R1. As such, the resolution is, once and for all, negated.Let's end this on a quick point-by-point break down:Conduct: Con. Pro dropped arguments and made semantical arguments despite these things being against the rules (rules he created nonetheless). S/G: Tie. Arguments: Con. Pro failed to even come close to fulfilling his BoP. Sources: Con. Pro only sourced one of his claims, a claim he has admitted to be an irrelevant distinction in this last round. I provided both more and more relevant sources to back up my claims.VOTE CONSources1. http://tinyurl.com...