God probably exists. (Version 2).

**If you have displayed that god in an absolute for one way of the other, you have not met your burden. Now, as for my burden, I have to refute any arguments to show how God is probable. Has this happened? No. My opponent's argument deals in absolutes. I don't even have to refute it. But I am trying to. Hopefully, with this cleared up, and the spirit of the debate still going on, we can continue.** I have met my burden of proof. I have displayed that if God is possible, then God is necessary. Thus, the burden of proof has shifted to you. Stop ignoring the question. **It seems my opponent has consented the debate to me "Okay, then you win that God is not probable but absolute." I understand my opponent's frustration, but I cannot change the title. This debate has been consented to Con.** This is a clear reading out of context. Apply context. **"Please take a modal logic course." I ask my opponent to cease his ad hominem attacks. Frustration? Fine. But ad homs? Not acceptable.** This is not an ad hominem attack. And ad hominem attack is one that determines that the argument is falls via the person's character. This is not even an attack against the character. **Contention 3: The Omniscient Changes the Future A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and free-willed is impossible.** Omniscience is a factor of knowing all things, which includes all possible worlds. Omnipotence is a factor of being able to do all possible things. This, thus, reverts into the Euthyphro dilemma, which is not a dilemma. when looking at the transcendental argument for God, one will find that logic had to have been created by God; however, if logic was created by God, then what was before it's creation? Hence, we find two contentions against his contention: (1) God's creation of the world is apart of His being and absoluteness, thus, being a factor of His own nature, thus, not allowing Himself to do anything but what His nature entails, (2) He created it, just like logic and morality, but before its creation logic was not real, thus, making God free then. However, even at that, as I displayed earlier, God cannot go against His own nature, which is to say do the logically impossible. Hence, there is no problem here anyways, since there is no contradiction. **Contention 4: God is not just, and thus impossible. God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in Hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible. Thus, the God of the Bible does not exist.** This is not an argument. This is based in suppositions and desires, not justice. Surely, if we were totally deprived and against God, as the Bible says, we would hate God and His justice. Furthermore, he is claiming morality, and justice, to be absolute, which requires a moral absolute prescriber. Hence, God is just and it goes against our deep natural desires. **Contention 5: Belief more important than action. It is clear from the Bible that it matters not what you have done - not how loving, kind, compassionate you are. The God of the Bible makes it clear that you have two options: a) Worship me or b) Burn forever in Hell.** This is not an argument either: it fails to realize what the Bible even states and fails to even provide an issue of God being possible. The Bible states that all sin is rooted in evil; evil is not just doing evil things in the positive, but also doing evil things in the negative. Hence, when one does believe in God, then the natural overflow is good works and loving, kindness, and compassion. Also, this has no bearing on whether God is possible or not. **Anyone who lived before Jesus? They're in Hell. The Amazonian tribesman? They're in Hell. Punishing someone for rules and laws that: a) They've never even heard of b) Are not necessary to live a satisfactory life and c) They have no reason to have heard of them Is not just. In most any court of law (in a first world country), people will be punished on their actions, not their beliefs. Why? Because it's not just and subjective depending on the belief(s) of the person(s). Not just. Thus, the God of the Bible is impossible.** There is no free will. God has preplanned everything; if you want to say from the before that it is in His nature for this story to unfold, then we don't have free will there either: God has preplanned for some to believe and some to not believe (Romans 9). Continued, he keeps claiming a sense of absolute morality, yet has no basis in what it is except his own opinion. Hence, this is not an argument either. **What have we concluded? That either: Godd and God are impossible because they contradict each other, by definition or The Ontological argument doesn't work when one applies it to another MGB.** I already addressed this last time. There is no reason for Godd to be any greater than God. This means that they are the same being. **"Why would something be in any way greater for having an extra letter?" 1) The extra letter is not the point; the point is that Godd is unique (like God) by definition to this world. 2) You have the burden to prove this God impossible.** Uniqueness is not a bearing on maximal greatness. This is the same being. **Remember, this God (called Godd) is exactly like God. Godd is unique, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. My opponent (as he has been stressing) has the burden of proof to prove Godd to be impossible. Of course, if one were to say that: Godd is impossible because of God. Then that's begging the question. "You are also verging on Gaunilo's objection, which has been rebutted multiple times as well." Well...no, because his objection was something that was different from God. Godd is like Godd in every attribute, remember.** You're not understanding the argument.... there is no reason to say that Godd is greater than God. Hence, they are the same being. **My opponent has used a red herring fallacy. Prove Godd to be impossible without begging the question. (Remember, he's exactly like God, and God is exactly like Godd).** This contradicts exactly what you said before that Godd is unique and different. He is the same being. We have yet to see any logical rebut, except for the omniscience and omnipotence paradox. He has committed so many logical fallacies. It is obvious who won this debate..... At one point while writing this response I thought he was simply a troll trying to mess with me... Its that bad.... Please, actually argue with reasoning, not opinion. Also, please do some research on the ontological argument; I'm not sure you understand it.