It is Logically Impossible that a Maximally Great Being Exists.

I must admit that it is slightly disappointing that my opponent has asserted quite a bit that I have not provided sufficient responses to his objections when I have done this, and then he proceeds to not even truly respond to the objections I have made. Validity of the Argument While I completely agree that my burden in this debate is to prove both the validity of the argument and the truth of the premises, I prefer to do one at a time. Pro claims that his fourth objection attacks the validity of the argument. The argument has “internal problems,” my opponent claims, because I am acknowledging that a MGB could exist in order to say that the limit of this being has been surpassed. He can say he has attacked the arguments validity and “internal problems” all he wants, but I don’t see that he has. What he has done is ignored the “Ifs” at the beginning of most of the premises. Because these “Ifs” are there, his objection is not an objection to the validity of the argument, but to the accuracy of these “If” statements, since each premise following the first two makes its claim directly from the previous claim. As I have already explained in the previous round, I am not saying in the beginning of the argument that a maximally great being could exist, I am saying that if a maximally great being could exist, it would be contradictory, therefore it cannot exist. If Con thinks his fourth objection really tries to challenge the validity of the argument as opposed to the truth of the “If” statements, he has done a poor job justifying this. Word Changes As I have demonstrated that both a Universe and a galaxy cannot be infinite in size at any given time, I will go ahead and agree that the distinction is not significant since neither could contain an infinite amount of stars. The difference between the “is” and “must be” is, however, much more than the petty semantics my opponent posits it is. This difference is a difference between the argument being sound or not. He also says I did not explain why this difference is so important. 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.” Objection 1: Pro has not proven that there must exist a finite amount of stuff in the Universe. No! No! No! 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. Saying that there are around 100 billion stars proves that there is, my argument with in infinity proves that there must be. Next, Con argues that infinity is not a number, rather it is a concept. He equates using infinity as a number to using blue as a number. It is actually for this reason that there must exist a finite number of stars. Saying that there is are blue stars to describe how many stars there are makes very little sense indeed, and if we are to believe as my opponent has indicated that the two are equivalent in their relationship of concepts to numbers, then infinity as a description of an amount also makes little sense. Yet, my opponent fails to fully respond to my analysis of infinity using the law of identity, given that my argument was not concerned so much with the identity of infinity, as it was with the different identities of numbers. My video on the Hilbert Hotel was merely an extra, meant to provide another example of how paradoxical infinities can be. 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, and given that he is using M-Theory as an example of different cardinalities of infinity, the same holds true for that. I have clearly demonstrated using the law of identity that there must exist an infinite amount of stuff in the Universe. Objection 2: A finite number of existing stars doesn’t mean a finite number of potential stars. Here, Pro argues that having an infinite amount of power does not necessarily mean using an infinite amount of power. 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. He next challenges validity of the syllogism I presented to show that a MGB could not create an infinite amount of stuff, by saying that it is a non-sequiter. This is not the case as the syllogism follows the valid form: P1. P cannot do anything that is X.P2. Q is X.C.Therefore, P cannot do Q. I have demonstrated that an infinite amount of stuff cannot exist, and we agreed that a MGB cannot do what is not logically possible, so it is easy to conclude that a MGB cannot create an infinite number of stars at any given time. Objection 3: A MGB has infinite power. Though I gave no specific definition of omnipotence in R1, I did give the constraint on any possible definition that could be brought up that the omnipotence being discussed cannot exceed logical impossibility. This was accepted by my opponent. So, any definition proposed must work within this agreed upon constraint. This is not a redefinition after my opponent presented a definition, but rather a rejection of the definition based upon a previously agreed upon criterium. Objection 4: The argument concedes that a MGB is possible. My opponent asserts that I did not provide an actual rebuttal to objection in the previous round and that I have not even acknowledged the objection. This is not the case. I clearly explained why this objection is an invalid one, and this explanation was reiterated earlier in this round. It is my opponent who has failed to offer a response to my rejection of his objection, so this point must be counted in my favor. Conclusion I have sufficiently responded to all of Pro’s objections. Thus far, he has not provided sufficient responses to my objections. I thank my opponent for this debate. The resolution stands affirmed.