The Ontological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

It Is Possible That God Exist"Actually"Pro starts off his argument with a red-herring about the word "actually". I am not claiming that there is a difference between metaphysically possible and "actually" metaphysically possible. Metaphysical PossibilityMy opponent states that if he has not met his burden of proof, then the fault lies with me for not explaining it more clearly. This is absurd. If Pro hasn't met his burden of proof, then the fault self-evidently lies with him. Pro then asserts:"I accepted the distinction of metaphysical possibility and showed that it was necessarily true in my previous round. " - ProThe only thing Pro showed is that if God is possible, he is necessarily metaphysically possible and not just epistemologically possible. It doesn't follow from this that God is necessarily metaphysically possible, just that if God is possible in any sense, then it has to be metaphysically possible. Note, how this is a conditional statement. To claim that God's metaphysical possibility follows from this would be a non-sequitur. Additionally, I showed in my last round how Pro's argument is contradictory, as his argument both assumes God is metaphysically possible and epistemologically possible. The Fallacy Of ConsequencePro argues that since it is impractical to expect him to show that God checks out with every possible world and that no argument against his coherency holds, that he doesn't have to. However, this is just a fallacy of consequence. Even if it is impractical, it doesn't follow from this that it isn't required to establish the resolution. The first premise of the Modal Ontological Argument is a positive claim stating that God is not impossible. To prove this premise, it has to be shown that nothing makes God impossible. Since Pro admits he cannot do this by ruling out that which makes God impossible, he inadvertently concedes the debate as this is necessary for sufficient support. Pro Admits That God Does Not ExistPro admits the conclusion of the Modal Ontological Argument is false:"There could be any number of things—both realized and unknown—that contradict the possibility of God. " - ProHowever, if a maximally great being existed, then it would be false that there could be any number of things-both realized and unknown-that contradict the possibility of God, as God would be necessary! Thus, Pro just admitted that a necessary being does not exist, and shipped his own argument to the graveyard. The Rules Of The Debate And Begging The QuestionMy opponent says that he has engaged me to try and challenge the coherency of God. Since, I say I don't have to challenge the coherency of God, then I am begging the question. Self-evidently, this is nonsense. The rules of this debate clearly state that all I must do is undermine the argument to the point where I have shown that Pro has not proven the conclusion true. Either way, Pro's concession that there could be things that contradict God's existence sufficiently shows that Pro has a self-refuting case. Coherency Of Terms Of God =/= Coherency Of God There could still be an external fact about the world which contradicts God. Thus, even if there is nothing internally contradictory about God, it doesn't follow that God is coherent. Have I Offered Rebuttals To The First Premise? Pro claims that even if I don't have to falsify the first premise, I should have at least had rebuttals to it. However, I have undermined every single piece of defense of P1 of the Modal Ontological Argument that Pro has thrown at me, and in my last round I showed how his position is contradictory as he confused epistemological possibility with metaphysical possibility. In this round, I proved how his whole case is even more self-refuting due to the fact that he admitted that there could be things which contradict God's existence. If those are not sufficient rebuttals; there are no sufficient rebuttals. Do I have To Help Pro Win The Debate Against Me? If the first premise is to be established as true, then it has to be shown that nothing is the case which makes God impossible. Pro claims that if there are things which make God impossible, then I should name them. This is clearly shifting the burden of proof. Pro's argument rests on there necessarily not being things which make God impossible (Pro has even contradicted that point). Therefore, he has to figure out what they are and rule them out on his own. I feel rather embarrassed that I have to remind my opponent that if someone makes a positive claim they must prove it true. I do not have to help my opponent by naming off the things he has to name in order to defeat me. That, clearly, is his job. Straw-Man ArgumentPro claims that all I have done is claim that Pro has not met his burden of proof. This is false. I showed what Pro must do to establish his burden of proof, then proved why he didn't meet those requirements. That is hardly just asserting that my opponent has not met his burden of proof; that is actually demonstrating it. Additionally, Pro completely ignored my arguments in the last round accusing him of both assuming God is metaphysically possible, and epistemologically possible at the time time in a contradictory fashion. Those points were simply dropped as if they did not even exist. Addressing Pro's ConclusionNothing about my rebuttals have been question begging, but Pro is certainly straw-manning. I am not just asserting that Pro hasn't met his burden of proof, as I have went into great detail explaining exactly why he has not met his burden of proof. For example, in order for Pro to show that God is not impossible, he has to rule out that which makes God impossible. If nothing makes God impossible, he must prove this. Since he has not done this (Pro even admitted he didn't have enough room), he hasn't established his burden of proof. That is a logically valid argument, not simply a bare-assertion like Pro is implying. Pro says below:"Con is insisting that he wins so long as I am unable to conceive of all possible contentions. This not only makes discourse nearly impossible on this subject, it is also beyond the scope of modal logic. Modal logic is meant to study the metaphysical without having to identify and observe every iteration of it. " - ProOnce more, Pro forgets that he leaves the door open for epistemic error by admitting there are possible contentions against God. Thus, what he has just said is that God is epistemically possible. This directly contradicts Pro's claim that God is metaphysically impossible. Therefore, Pro's case is self refuting. Pro says that he showed God is metaphysically possible given the qualities of a maximally great being. However, Pro only showed that if God is possible, he is metaphysically possible and not epistemically possible (my opponent even contradicts that). God being any kind of possible doesn't follow from this. That is simply a non-sequitur ("x does not follow from "if x"). Also, the fact that God is defined as maximally great doesn't make God metaphysically possible because of the concept. This is circular support for the premise, as it assumes the concept of a maximal greatness is coherent already to even make that move. ConclusionI did not bare-assert that Pro has not met his burden of proof; I showed specifically that Pro has not met his burden of proof. Not only that, I showed why his case is contradictory and self-refuting. He confused possibility types multiple times throughout the debate, and concedes the debate by saying:"There could be any number of things—both realized and unknown—that contradict the possibility of God. " - ProI completely agree with above, and this a point that shall remain unconsted by me as it is true. However, this is fatal to Pro's case and proves that Atheism is indeed true, and that Theism is false. This is simply because if God was necessary, then there could not be anything that contradicts his possibility. Pro fails by default regardless of any other arguments.