God probably exists. (Version 2).

**My opponent's argument can be boiled down to his step by step "walk through" per se, to prove the omnipotence of God. I will refute it accordingly. "(1) A maximally great being is possible. (2) A maximally great being exists in some possible world. (3) A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Refer to the definition of maximally great) (4) A maximally great being exists in the actual world."** This argument is not proving omnipotence. The argument is proving existence. **"(1) A maximally great being is possible." The argument falls here - my opponent has not demonstrated how this is possible. He attempts to dodge the question by shifting the burden of proof onto myself, backing it up by stating that: "in modal logic, all things are possible until proven impossible." While this could be true, my opponent has provided no source to back up this assertion, so it is an assertion without evidence. And, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Until my opponent provides evidence that "in modal logic, all things are possible until proven impossible", I will be forced to dismiss my opponent's claim. But, let's assume that a maximally great being is possible, and continue. (One can essentially dismiss point two, as, by definition, a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds from the start).** It simply is the rule in modal logic that all things are possible unless logically incomprehensible. The only way something can be proven to be incomprehensible is to display that is contradicts another variable. Hence, the burden of proof is shifted to the atheist. Do not dodge the question; do no commit a red herring. **"(3) A maximally great being exists in every possible world". This is not true. Take, for example, a world of non-sentience . In a non-sentient world, there can be no sentient beings, such as a maximally great one. So, if this maximally great being exists, then, logically, no non-sentient worlds exist. This would be logical. However, for this maximally great being (MGB) to exist, Pro must prove that a non-sentient world is impossible. He has not done this. His argument, as it stands, is refuted.** Logic is the process of the mind. There are logical absolutes, such as A cannot equal not A. Hence, logical absolutes, such as A cannot equal not A, are formulated from the mind. If logic is not factored into reality, then we can assume that the universe can be here and not here at the same time. We can also assume that logic is real and not real at the same time. We can also assume that sentient beings are real and not real at the same time. Hence, a world without sentient beings is illogical. Also, this assumes for God, likewise, since logic is absolute and eternal, thus, requiring a sentient and absolute being. Furthermore, this displays the contradictory nature of the previous rebut, which was for me to prove to him the statement of "all things are possible until proven impossible. Continued, this argument also assumes for the non-existence of God, thus, displaying a logical fallacy of begging the question. His argument is really connected to whether God is possible or not. Thus, this rebut it pointless. **Now some arguments to show that the God of the Bible is not probable. (Though this is not a burden, as agreed upon by my opponent by his acceptance of this debate).** This is irrelevant. God cannot possible exist but not probably exist. God either is necessary or God is impossible. Hence, this is an illogical statement. **Contention 1: Epicurus' Argument. (This argument was probably not Epicurus', but for the sake of argument, we'll assume it is his, as it really makes little difference). "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent [not omnibenevolent]. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? [not omnipotent nor omnibenevolent]".** God is able to destroy evil; however, He is willing and not willing to do it. As displayed int he Bible, God allows evil to bring about a greater good, which God has predestined; this does not make God evil, though, for He plans to destroy it in time (refer to Proverbs 16:4 and Romans 9 and Genesis 50:20). For assuming for evil is assuming for God, since the only way to assume for an objective moral standard is to assume for an objective moral prescriber. Hence, it is illogical to address evil and then say that God does not exist. **Contention 2: Argument from Perfection. The argument is simple: (P1) God is a perfect thing (a perfect being). (P2) Perfect things are usually nonexistent idealizations of real things. (P3) Perfect things are unlikely to exist. (from P2) (C) Therefore, it is unlikely [not probable] that God exists. (from P3 and P1).** This is irrelevant. Whether God is possible is the key question. My opponent has yet to actually address the argument: he has committed red herrings and begging the question fallacies throughout his post. He has yet to meet his burden of proof that coincides with modal logic basics, nor has he demonstrated to me how God would be impossible.