The Ontological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

I will go back to the original argument as it seems as though we have wandered off the point. The first premise states that 'it is possible that a maximally great being exists'. Now if this is true, then the rest of the points follow necessarily. And in my two arguments, I have shown that indeed, is is possible that a maximally great being exists. So it logically follows that a maximally great being exists. In order for con to refute this, then he has to assert that it is not possible for a maximally great being to exist and I don't think that he has succeeded. In an attempt to reverse the argument, he gives us a counter-argument. And the issue is have is with P4. This is because in P1 we need to look at it the context of a maximally great being existing as opposed to the context of it not existing which is what con is suggesting; for example he uses the example of gratuitous suffering existing - where if a maximally great being existed, it would not be possible. In which case, any plug he puts in for 'p' will not be possible by definition, which means the conclusion does not follow. The argument should end at P3, but instead there is a fourth premise which does not follow from the rest of the argument. If it is not possible that 'p' is true, then that is where the argument should end. It certainly shouldn't suggest that God does not exist. In other words, If it is the case that God exists, then premise 1 will be redundant and the conclusion doesn't follow. The argument gives bigger priority to premise 1 than it does God exists. There is a big assumption in this argument that atheism is the only possible worldview. But con hasn't given an argument for this thus far. My opponent then proceeds to counter my two arguments. Premise 1 The objection he has to the first premise is that the laws of cause and effect do not apply quantum mechanics And therefore not everything has a cause. However, I think my opponent will find that when scientists say that these things are 'uncaused', That is not at all what they mean. After all, it is absolutely logically impossible for ANYTHING to exist with no previous cause. Rather, the cause is defined as a non-material cause. These so called uncaused events are usually due to Fluctuations in the quantum vacuum which is NOT nothing! As for the fluctuations themselves, they will have come into existence at the time of the beginning of the universe (so the cause of the fluctuations will have been they cause of the universe). The cause of these quantum events have a cause and so con has not achieved anything by bringing uncaused quantum events into the argument. But for the sake of argumemt, Let's say we grant con his argument. But it would nevertheless be worthless, as we could then re-arrange my argument to state the following: 1) If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning As you can see, this makes con's point redundant as quantum mechanics have nothing to do with this argument. Moreover, I see no reason why one cannot hold that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its beginning (including virtual particles), but allowing movements or changes in already existing things to occur without causes. This is a position from a single, first cause from which everything came from. Premise 2 Con says that 'the universe had some sort of beginning'. So he agrees with me and there is no issue here. The universe could not exist in any form for an infinite amount of time as it is a logical impossibility - if you subtracted 10 trillion years from the time the universe has been in existence, then it would result in the same amount of years as before. No rational person could accept this to be true. So this means that the universe, and everything the universe is composed of, will have to have come into existence a finite time ago. Premise 3 I think the argument has been established Why a Maximally Great Being? I think we have to dish out some definitions here. 'Timeless' does not mean that time does not apply to the being. Rather it means that the being transcends time - abiding by it but not bound by it. The same with space and materiality. 'mind' simply means a conscience - a being that is not dead. So it is entirely possible that there is a 'timeless mind' as a creator of the universe, as it would simply be a conscious being that transcends the universe. The reason why there are only two Options - abstract objects: so numbers, properties, laws etc. and an 'unembodied mind or conscience' is because these are the only conceivable entities that could transcend the universe. If con could provide alternatives, I am more than willing to listen to them. But as it stands, the only of the two that could possibly create ANYTHING is an unembodied conscious. I do not argue the properties of this being in the argument itself; rather I get to the conclusion that the being is maximally great essentially due to many other arguments, Namely: Moral Argument 1) If Objective moral values do not exist, then a Maximally Great Being does not exist -this is explanatory; if morals are not objective then there is no objective source for morals: therefore if a maximally great being does not exist then morals are subjective rather than objective. 2) Objective moral values do exist -we know this because of our own immediate experience. For example, we know that child abuse is wrong - if someone else thinks child abuse is morally alright, then we consider them as morally inferior people. - If morals are subjective, then one person's moral opinion is of an equal moral standard to another's. Someone who thinks child abuse is morally wrong is on a same moral standard to someone whose moral opinion it is that child abuse is morally good. Now it doesn't take much to realize that morals are objective - we simply need to look at our own moral opinions to see that morals are objective. 3) Therefore a maximally great being exists The Leibnizian Cosmological argument 1. Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3. The universe exists. 4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence. (from 1, 3) 5. Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God. (from 2, 4) I have explained before the premises of this argument so there is no need to go through them again. This proves that a maximally great being is the cause of the universe because of P1. The cause of the universe exists; and therefore has an explanation for itself. Since the explanation cannot be an external cause, the being has to exist in the necessity of it's own nature. This means that this being is maximally great as there is no greater cause and therefore no greater being. I think that these two arguments firmly establish that the cause of the universe, if it exists, must be maximally great. The fine-tuning Argument My opponent's main objection is to do with the multiverse. Not to mention that this is a highly controversial theory that lacks much proof, these universes would be part of a 'motherverse' - to which my arguments would still be applicable. Conclusion Overall, my opponent doesn't show any serious objection to any of my arguments. The conclusion of the Ontological argument for atheism he provided does not follow from the premises - and his objections to my arguments do not succeed in refuting them. I think that, for the reasons I have explained, that the ontological argument is indeed sound to prove the existence of God. Sources: Metaphysical Disputations 20-22, St Augustine's press 200