Divinity is real in some form

Concession I will clarify on the issues of the first paragraph of this argument. My opponent"s BoP is to show that a greatest possible being conceivable (divinity) exists in some form. What is a greatest possible being conceivable? This is easy to clarify, and we only have to look at Anselm"s ontological argument for clarification. A greatest possible being would be greatest in every way. This means it would be necessarily omnipotent and omniscient, or greatest in power and knowledge. Such a being would easily meet the requirements for being classified as a god, so using the terms divinity and god interchangeably is not a problem. My opponent points out that we might not be able to conceive of such a being, but that is simply not true. Let"s look at the definition of conceive: Conceive- Form a mental representation of; imagine. According to Oxford English Dictionaries Now notice that to conceive something does not necessarily mean, to completely understand something. I can conceive of a flying unicorn being ridden by a leprechaun with fireballs for hands. Can I explain to you the anatomy of the unicorn or how it can fly? No. Can I tell you how the leprechaun works, and why it can shoot fireballs? No. Does this mean I haven"t conceived it? Of course not! If I can imagine it (in the definition of conceive) then I can conceive it. We don"t need to think of the greatest possible being, we just need to think of the greatest possible being conceivable. An omnipotent being would be able to take any form, so this should not be too difficult. You could just imagine an empty space, because the being could be immaterial, and then imagine that the empty space could do anything. It"s a simple idea. Now to prove that anyone can conceive of an omnipotent and omniscient being, I will refer you to a comic book. In DC comics, The Source is an all powerful and all knowing being, easily defined as the greatest possible being. "Known as the Consciousness of the DC Comics Multiverse, The Source is the source of all that exists."[1]. In the Marvel comics the One-Above-All "is omnipotent and omniscient meaning his powers are unlimited, incalculable, and immeasurable. As if that"s not enough, he is also Omnipresent and as such, there exists only one, in all realities at once."[1] You could just look at most of the monotheistic religions and conclude that they conceive of a greatest possible being conceivable on a daily basis. It is clear that a greatest possible being conceivable would be omnipotent, and omniscient, and conceiving of such a being is not very difficult. My opponent quotes something in his argument: "divinity isn't real as their are things which are greater than what can be conceived" and gives the impression that I said it, but I never did. He also horribly misrepresents my position. Now let"s look at my opponent"s "summary" of my argument. "- The BOP is failed as Pro didn't prove divinity is omnipresent [I actually said omniscient, not omnipresent] or omnipotent (not the resolution, nonexistent bop, and my opponent made up this condition)(opponent conceded by basically admitting divinity exists) I never said anything like this. It is also a terrible misrepresentation of my position since it assumes he has already proven divinity exists, just not shown that it is omnipresent or omnipotent. Since divinity is necessarily omnipotent and omniscient, he must show that an omnipotent and omniscient being exists to show that divinity exists. He has yet to prove divinity exists. - Pro has to prove that there is nothing greater than divinity (Which makes no sense given divinity is the greatest thing that can be conceived) (LMAO at the opposition's fallacy, which conceded the debate again). I never said anything like this either. Could my opponent be completely straw manning me? Pro does not have to prove that there is "nothing greater than divinity". Divinity is the greatest thing we can conceive. He must prove that divinity exists, which he has not done. - Pro has to prove what the greatest possible being is. (fallacy, not a part of the BOP, and debunked as this is conceding the greatest thing is)" It"s confirmed everybody! My opponent has completely straw manned my arguments! I never said a greatest possible being exists, ever. Pro has to show that a greatest possible being exists, and I have adequately explained what that would entail. These are completely pathetic. Each "summary" can be viewed as a concession, but I never said anything that he puts here! He doesn"t quote me once, but he does succeed in terribly straw manning my position. I"m confident that anyone who actually READS my argument would know that this "summary" is absolutes ridiculous. It occurs to me that he may be appealing to the low information voter, people who skim arguments, see his summary and assume I conceded. That makes it vital that all voters actually read the debate. "Now, as I will restate, my opponent has already conceded that divinity exists as he accepted the definition." The definition actually works in my favor, since it is incredibly easy to conceive of a greatest possible being that would be necessarily omnipotent and omniscient. My opponent keeps yelling "Concession!" but has failed to show how I conceded. I challenge my opponent to provide an actual quote of mine that would be a concession. "He outright told me over PM he agrees the terminology is legit, so there's really no point in continuing debate. Yet, I will push forward and persevere to stamp out the rhetoric and fallacious equations within an argument my opponent truly didn't understand." I absolutely agreed to the definition, that"s why I clarified last round, but again the definition works in my favor. As for the not understanding comment, I think I"ll let the voters decide that. I do find it ironic that you"ve made another claim without evidence though. What is the Greatest Being We Can Conceive? I will clarify again, the definition of conceive is not to understand, it is to imagine or form a mental representation of. I can imagine a greatest possible being just like I can imagine Zeus throwing lightning bolts. For a greatest possible being to truly be greatest, it must be greatest in all aspects, including power and knowledge. An omnipotent being could assume any form, or be immaterial. So, to imagine one, just imagine an empty space, or your favorite pet, or the weird guy that lives across the street, and then imagine that they can do anything and know everything. It is quite easy. My opponent makes several faulty claims in this argument. "The Xenoic argument was that "divinity" was the solution to the problems we don't know. Or the "answers"." This operates under the faulty assumption that the "answers" are the greatest thing that we can conceive, but it is simple to conceive of a being that put the answers there in the first place. It"s also important to note that "answers" don"t fit the definition that my opponent thinks is so in his favor. A Greatest Possible Being Conceivable Being- A real or imaginary living creature, especially an intelligent one- According to Oxford English Dictionaries. So "answers" cannot fit this definition completely undermining Pro"s argument. "If we can conceive a omniescient god (which my opponent said, once again conceding the debate), we can also conceive something much more moderate, such as nature being divine, reason being divine, or science being divine. Next time, my opponent should read and have an understanding of the word can. My opponent confused the word "greatest" possibility (which can be logically conceived), with "perfect" (which can't be logically conceived, as perfection is a sham)." My opponent makes the point that we "can" conceive of something more moderate, but this fails to accomplish the goal of conceiving of the greatest possible being conceivable, so his point is useless and irrelevant. I also did not confuse "greatest" and "perfect". My point is that the "greatest" being we can conceive is about as close to perfect as it gets. "This alone is enough to forfeit the debate." Really? I sincerely doubt it. I would highly appreciate it if the opposition would stop making up BOP "rules" which don't exist. The only thing I must prove is that divinity (in some shape or form) exists, and I already have won by him conceding that there are conceivable things." Clearly you don"t understand the resolution. You must show the existence of a greatest possible being conceivable (I"ve already explained why that would have to be omnipotent and omniscient), and you have failed to do so. You are confusing any random thing you can conceive with the greatest possible thing you can conceive. This failure will probably cost you the debate. The existence theory disputation made by Kant, a philosopher I reffered my opponent to when he investigated on to my arguments, wasn't even brought up by my opponent, which shows me he doesn't understand the Social Hiearchy theory made by Augustine." My opponent did recommend I use Kant"s rebuttal, but Kant"s rebuttal was geared towards the typical ontological argument. My opponent"s argument was very different, and not even a correct representation of Augustine"s argument). It was simple for me to point the flaws in the argument without resorting to a rebuttal to a completely different argument. I recommend that readers look at Pro"s source about Augustine"s argument to see which one of us misunderstands it. Greatest thing conceivable My opponent is required to show the existence of a greatest possible being conceivable. He pointed to science and truisms. I showed him that I could conceive of a much greater being quite easily. There is no fallacy here. My opponent refers to the ontological argument which he has not even used so that is irrelevant. Augustine"s Argument My opponent claims that there is an explanation behind all things, and that explanation is divine. I already explained the huge flaw in this argument. First of all it ignores the possibility of brute facts. Second of all it assumes these explanations are the greatest thing we can possibly conceive, which is just not true, since I can conceive of a being that put those truisms in place. My opponent is not arguing for the right thing here. Then my opponent accuses me of straw manning him and apparently forgets to explain how. This problem is easily solved by voters looking at his source for his arguments, and everyone will see that my rebuttals have addressed his flimsy arguments accurately. He also says I failed to address his first point, but his first point only argued for humanities existence, which is clarified in his source. Ciceric Theory Here my opponent claims that science can solve all problems and "proves" his point with a link to a Google search. He also tries to put the BoP on me to prove science cannot prove all things which is a faulty shifting of the BoP. I will do it anyway. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of an invisible immaterial undetectable pink unicorn godess. Point is proven. Also the ability to conceive all things (which is not proven) does not mean humanity is the greatest thing conceivable. We could easily conceive of something else, that could conceive of all things and be omnipotent. My opponents argument is weak and has been completely refuted. Xenoic and Aurellic Theory I have already shown how incredibly simple it is to conceive of an omnipotent and omniscient being. My opponent has to fall back on saying the universe could contain a greatest possible being in theory. Unfortunately there is no evidence of this, and since I can easily conceive of a greatest possible being that the universe is not quite as great as, the entire argument is defeated. Conclusion I find it disheartening that my opponent must resort to pointing out nonexistent concessions. He has a large burden of proof that is completely unfulfilled. All of his arguments have been completely defeated since he formulated them incorrectly. He accuses me of not understanding his arguments, or straw manning him, when in reality the opposite is true. It is blatantly obvious that my opponents failure to properly deliver the arguments is due to a lack of understanding. He also makes several claims/summaries about my position, but does not quote me once. He has completely ignored my actual arguments and rebuttals and resorted to childish accusations of concessions and stupidity out of the realization that his position is untenable. [1] http://list25.com...