Resolved: The Ontological Argument is Sound

“Right from the start I can make the clear extension of the Ontological Argument I offered. The reason is that even if everything you said is correct, the argument is still true, which means its conclusion is also true.” Unfortunately, your conclusion was not “There is a maximally great being,” but “There is a God,” which you indicate in the final line of the first round. There is indeed a maximally great being; you have no disagreement from me on that count. My disagreement is in that this maximally great being is God or even A god. This statement also encompasses the claim you make in your final paragraph of round 2. “Your use of definitions for specific words are fallacious. My a MGB, supporters of the Ontological Argument do not mean Great to be "powerful" and greatness to be "measure of ability to accomplish."” Unfortunately, without establishing a definition of the word “great,” you are potentially guilty of an equivocation fallacy. Allow me to explain: If we take the word “great” to mean “of major significance or importance,” then your maximally great being is not omnipotent, omniscience, or omnibenevolent. In fact, I declare that a maximally great being would instead be myself. I am much more important to me than an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being, because I do not believe such a being exists. Therefore, I can think of a “greater” being than the greatest conceivable being. It is clear you do not accept the definition of “great” to be “Powerful; possessing the ability to accomplish.” I suggest you attempt to establish an alternative definition in the next round to avoid the aforementioned fallacy. You suggest that “[your] definition” is superior at the end of the paragraph I have just referenced. I ask: did you mean the definition of a maximally great being? If this is the case, then I will simply state that your definition can be less restrictive and accomplish the same goal, and is thus, inferior. Indeed, one component is potentially contradictory (provided that you do not sufficiently defend it), which, if shown to be the case, would entirely nullify the usefulness of your definition. Did you mean the definition of “great,” and “greatness”? If this is the case, then I again suggest you attempt to establish these definitions in the next round. I will extend my argument against omniscience as your rebuttal is based upon a disagreement on the meaning of the word “great.” Until you establish an alternative definition, the argument stands. “An omnibenevolent being is also a property of maximal greatness because to not be the greatest possible authority on morality would be inferior to what it means to be maximally great, that is, the greatest conceivable being.” A being need not be benevolent to establish a moral law, should one exist. In fact, an omnipotent, omnimalevolent being would have to establish a moral law in order to defy it. You claim that to be good is greater than to be partially good or all-evil. Indeed, we may prefer a being which is all-good, but if the definition of “greatness” is not established to have a meaning that encompasses morality, this claim holds no weight. Therefore, I again claim that a neutral being would be greater than either as it would have no restriction upon its actions. “Then you claim that existence itself is omnipotent. You have committed the fallacy of equivocation in terms of the word omnipotent. Omnipotent means a things ability to do all logically possible things.” Indeed, existence is responsible for all logically possible things. If existence did not itself exist, then there would not exist anything, including the concepts of those things which are logically possible. By itself existing, existence has put into place all that exists, and an alteration in existence itself could put into existence anything which could possibly exist. “But an abstract concept of a thing that is, on your equivocated definition of omnipotence, void of any ability to perceive or reason or invoke purpose or experience love or experience person hood etc. is by definition not omnipotence.” Again, this disagreement takes place based on your disagreement with my definition of “great.” I will take this opportunity to put further weight on the irrelevance of omniscience until an alternative definition is given.