God probably exists. (Version 2).

**First off, my opponent's burden of proof is to show that "God is probably real". If he cannot do that; he has failed. He accepted this (rule four) by joining the debate.** And I have displayed, through reasoning, God is either possible or impossible and that no one has demonstrated that God is impossible, thus, realizing that God is probably absolute. You have yet to demonstrate anything against that notion. That was my argument. Nevertheless (for the spirit of the debate), I will continue to refute the argument my opponent presents. **Premise one has failed; I will show why. The burden of proof. As a default, the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion[1] (in this case that God is probable - even though my opponent's argument, if it is true, has won me the debate by showing how God is not probable, but absolute).** Okay, then you win that God is not probable but absolute. However, as I said earlier, thats not what I'm referring to. **My opponent still makes claims with no evidence. "It simply is the rule in modal logic that all things are possible unless logically incomprehensible." I will make my own claim.** This is a modal logic fact: everything is possible unless contradictory. That is the entire point of modal logic. You make assumptions, then infer what would be and what would not be in that possible world. Hence, everything is possible until something within that world makes it contradictory. Please take a modal logic course. **"It is simply the rule in modal logic that the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the assertion. This can be shown because modal logic is an extension of logic[2], and in logic, the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion[1]. Therefore, the burden of proof in modal logic lies with the one making the assertion." Or, to put it another way: P1: In logic, the burden of proof lies with the one that makes the assertion[1]. P2: Modal logic is an extension of logic[2]. C: Therefore, in modal logic, the burden of proof lies with the one making the assertion.** And the assertion is always with the person claiming impossibility. Thats the point. You have yet to demonstrate that God is impossible. **Unless my opponent can provide more than claims, I am allowed to dismiss them. My opponent might want to cite sources, for example, to show this. No red herring has been committed.** Cite sources for what? The process of modal logic is in of itself a process of assuming possibility and then determining impossibility. You rebut it like asking for me to cite why history looks at the past: it is in the definition of the process; it simply is. **Now, before moving on, I am going to use the Ontological argument to disprove God. The greatest thing you can conceive is not God, it's Godd, who is like God, except that Godd, by definition, disproves any other maximally great beings, such as the God in the Bible. Now, I will use my opponent's flawless logic to win the debate: (1) It is possible that Godd (a MGB) exists. (2) Godd exists in some possible world. (3) Godd exists in all possible worlds. (Refer to the definition of maximally great) (4) Therefore, Godd exists in the actual world.** You know very well that what you have just said is not an argument. Why would something be in any way greater for having an extra letter? You are also verging on Gaunilo's objection, which has been rebutted multiple times as well. My opponent has yet to make any arguments. He has presented logical fallacy after logical fallacy: red herrings, straw men, and begging the question. There has to be any intellectual rebut to my first post. Hence, there is no reasonable reason to reject the notion that God probably exists.