Ontological arguments make God's existence at least slightly more likely

R1: Rebuttal to Salam's assertion that my argument is not an ontological one: Salam stated; “Ontological Arguments are philosophical arguments for the existence of God that uses ontology.” [sic] -Con this is entirely true. However, this definition is only helpful if we know what the word “ontology” refers to; The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (my personal favorite) defines “ontology” as “a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being” or “a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence” [1] According to Google.com “ontology” is “the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.” [2] And finally, Wikipedia describes “ontology” like so: “Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. Although ontology as a philosophical realm is academic in the sense that it is inseparable from each thinker's epistemology, it has practical application in information science and information technology, where it informs ontologies with chosen taxonomies. “ [3] The argument I supplied opens by defining the nature of “existence”, proceeded to determine whether or not an infinitesimal can exist by the resulting criterion, used that judgment to give us that simplest thing I believe to be capable of existing outside of every other being, and closed by describing the time before anything existed at all by exploring what happens when this criterion for existence is not met. To say that my submission is not a thoroughly if not exclusively ontological argument one would need to supply their own special definition of the word “Ontology”. As far I now know, I submitted something based on novel material, and so although it is indeed an ontological argument I am not surprised to find that it is not one of “the ontological arguments” [sic] with which Salam is familiar. R2: Clarification of Existence and the Elements of the Simplest Existent Thing: “Pro defines to exist as "to effect another existent thing" [sic]. But to affect another existent thing, requires the other thing to already exist, which would be a circular definition. Why complicate the definition of existence when it's a very simple definition? The precise definition is to have objective reality or being .” [sic] -Con There are a number of things wrong here, however, I do believe that the explaination given for my conclusion was insufficiently thorough, and so I will clarify my reasoning before I begin my defense. The Oxford Dictionary defines the word “exist” as a verb meaning to “Have objectivereality or being” however, this is a circular definition because the definitions for “being” and “reality” are quite miserably “existence” [4] and “The state or quality of having existence or substance” [5] respectively. I referred to this inconsistency in my original argument; “This irritation arises from an insufficient definition of "Existence" with which to judge something's potential for being. Unsurprisingly, Webster's definitions of "existence" and “being" are of no help to us here and so we are left with no better option than to determine our own deeper definitions of these words.” [sic] -Myself Proof of “Existence by Effect”: To Exist is to have “objective reality”. (Oxford Dictionary) If something possesses the quality of “objective reality” then it is necessarily part of Reality. (to mean the material universe) To be part of Reality is to participate in the chain of Cause and Effect. To participate in the chain of Cause and Effect is to effect and be effected by other participants in the chain of Cause and Effect. Therefore, to Exist is to effect (and be effected by) another existent thing. I challenge Salam to prove my reasoning flawed and/or give an example of something that exists and yet does not effect another existent thing. If he succeeds; then my greater argument crumbles and I will concede immediately. If he cannot provide such an example (or deems my reasoning sound) then I propose we consider this an established point from which we may continue the debate. Rebuttal to Pro's “R1. Existence and Elements of existence”: Salam dismisses the definition of existence as fallacious on the grounds that “to affect another existent thing, requires the other thing to already exist, which would be a circular definition.” [sic] and (ironically) supplies an even more obviously circular definition to replace it. The statement “to exist is to effect another existent thing” is no more fallacious than the statement that “to play basketball is to interact with other basketball players”. Basketball is a strictly multiplayer game, and so if there is only a single person in the world who wants to play basketball, then that one player simply cannot play a proper game of basketball. (Even though a lone person could play basketball, he will never find himself actually playing basketball.) In the same way, existence, as defined, cannot occur with less than 2 conceivable things. (Even though a lone thing could exist, it will never find itself actually existing.) Furthermore, I believe what you say here, Salam, is absolutely true; “there's no reason to rationally and logically believe that an infinitesimal small part doesn't actually exist. It can even exist physically. Size is not a precondition for existence.” [sic] -Con Although I did refer to the concept as “intuitively maddening” I never once suggested that an infinitesimally small thing cannot exist in the grander universe, In fact I said they actually do! “Everything we observe in nature has some length in all three spacial dimensions. (with the exception of concepts, as well as the photon and electron, which seem to behave as point particles in certain situations)[...]” [sic] -Myself Let me say this once more, this time with feeling; Science has accumulated extremely strong evidence to suggest that the electron and photon actually are spatially infinitesimal. As far as we know; neither one has volume and so physical size is quite obviously not a prerequisite for existence. However, this is not true for all infinitesimals and I took great care to say exactly what kind of infinitesimal cannot exist; The Isolated Infinitesimal. “Isolated” (with a capital “I”) meaning separate from every other thing; and “Infinitesimal” (with a capital “I”) to mean “that which is indefinitely small in any conceivable dimension” not just the 3 spatial ones. (An electron in this case may be an “infinitesimal” (lower-case) because it does not occupy space, but it may not be an uppercase “Infinitesimal” because it does have a definite, non-infinitesimal value in the dimensions of say “Charge” and “Mass”) To clarify my reasoning more formally: Proof of The Nonentity of The “Isolated Infinitesimal”: Assume that to “exist” is to effect another existent thing. [ See: Proof of “Existence by Effect”] If something does not effect another existent thing, then it does not exist. [see point 1] To be Infinitesimal is to be “That thing than which no smaller thing can be conceived”. [or something of indefinitely small dimensions] If it is conceivable to divide something into smaller parts than that thing is not the smallest conceivable thing. [see point 3] Therefore, to be an Infinitesimal is to be composed of a single conceivable thing which cannot be separated into smaller things. [see point 4] If the Infinitesimal is Isolated from every other thing, then there is only one conceivable thing. [see point 5] If there is only one conceivable thing, then that thing cannot effect another thing. Therefore, the Isolated Infinitesimal cannot exist. [see point 2] “The isolated apple [Or any other Non-Infinitesimal object] on the other hand, although nonexistent in the system of the universe, can indeed exist in it's own sub category of reality, because it is composed of a practically infinite number of smaller parts, which are in turn their own existent things, which qualifies the apple as a whole universe in itself, even apart from the far greater reality that we all enjoy. The infinitesimal on the other hand is necessarily comprised of only a single, infinitely small part. It stands to reason then, that when this infinitesimal is considered apart from any other thing it simply cannot exist on the condition that "To exist is to effect another existent thing.". [Therefore] The Isolated Infinitesimal does not exist.” [sic] -Myself And with that, I am afraid I am out of characters and time, and so my conclusion will have to be justified in the future. I would however like to draw attention to Con's “R2. The Harry Potter Argument” where he says Pro argues that even though “Harry Potter doesn't actually exist, "If I were to say "Harry talked to Hermione." however, then something certainly does exist."” Where he uses a gross misquotation, cutting the last sentence short where it would have clarified that it is not Harry Potter that exists but rather just the story of Harry Potter which certainly does exist in reality as well as Imagination. Furthermore, If you read carefully you will see that this was never even an argument, but rather a colorful illustration of the effect of a preceding argument. I now realize that I simply cannot afford to take such tangents however tempting they may be. Afraid I must adress my conclusion seperately in the next round. Turnover Con. http://www.merriam-webster.com... https://www.google.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...