It is more probable that God exist than that God does not exist

To make reading my responses easier, I am going to copy what Pro said and type my response under that in the same way that Pro did. My responses will be typed between apostrophes. I did have to take out a few of Stub's statements to fit the character limit, sorry. *'s where I had to delete his statement's. * ‘Pro goes on to point out how a banana isn’t a good example because it is food. The example being a banana had nothing to do with the point of the example. I just randomly selected a banana. It’s disappointing that Pro had to take the banana part of the example so far. ’ + I agree largely with what you said. A possible world is not reality. All it does is describe a way that reality could have been. ‘Stubs confirmed again that he knows that a possible world is irrelevant to reality but he still continues to later say how it is relevant. He’s very inconsistent with what a possible world is and frankly, I don’t think that he really understands the concept. ’ * ‘I did drift away from the agreed definition of god. I will admit that. But no matter what you say your made up being is, it doesn’t leave any possible world. A possible world is an exclusive idea. Any non-contradictory thing (so a married bachelor or a four-sided triangle couldn’t exist) can be possible. I could say that my maximally great banana that no one can eat or do anything to (it is equal to your idea of god) can be possible. It is the greatest thing conceivable. This just sounds silly but it’s the same idea, in some ways, as a god. The problem is that even if it is in a possible world, that possible world is an exclusive idea and it can’t come to our reality. Possible worlds don’t work like that! ’ +This is totally irrelevant to the 4th premise. If God exists in every possible world, then he exists in the actual world. This premise is totally uncontroversial. ‘Here, Pro is again showing his lack of understanding of the idea of a possible world. Each possible world is an exclusive idea that has not a single bit of an affect on reality. ’ + What is in a possible world is irrelevant to our reality if we are talking about contingent things, such as unicorns. However, God is a non-contingent being. He either exists necessarily or does not exist due to impossibility. If God exists in a possible world it logically follows that we would exist in every possible world and therefore the actual world. ‘Pro tries to explain how his possible world idea is still valid. He states that a god is relevant to reality in a possible world because he is non-contingent. There is no proof however, that a god, if one existed, is non-contingent. A god and/or a maximally great being have never been observed to find out if they are non-contingent. I even if they were, a possible world is still an exclusive idea, thus a god in a possible world being non-contingent is still irrelevant to reality. ’ +Well in the first round of this debate I defined God as a maximally great being. The first round was specifically for acceptance and clarification. If you had a problem with the definition of God then I would have been willing to discuss it, but it is far too late now. I know some people might take that as a loss of conduct for con because he asked to change a definition in the middle of the debate, but I ask that not be a reason to deduct him the conduct point. I don't want a good debate ruined by something stupid like that if the voting happens to be close. ‘This is true. I made a mistake here with the definition of your unproven idea of a god. ’ +I was looking forward to hearing this (: A banana that is maximally great is logically incoherent. Let's think about this. A maximally great banana would have to be metaphysically necessary. That is one of the qualities of something that is maximally great. However, bananas can be eaten. If the banana can be eaten then it is not metaphysically necessary! If the banana cannot be eaten then it is not a banana! The idea of a maximally great banana is just a logically incoherent idea. ‘This is where Pro gets carried away with the idea of my example being a banana. How is my magic banana not metaphysically necessary? There is just as much evidence for my banana as your god! I defined my banana as maximally great, you can’t change its definition. ’ + This is a false statement. All the ontological argument proves true is a maximally great being. Other religions such as Hinduism have hundreds upon hundreds of gods which are not maximally great. They have a sun god, moon god, wind god and so on, but none of them are maximally great. The ontological can be used only for maximally great beings which corresponds to the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam respectably. As I said in the first round, I am not referring to any specific deity, just a maximally great being. ‘I’m sure that if you looked online that you could find many different, smaller religion with maximally great gods. I even made up one! ’ + This is also a false statement. There are many things that cannot possibly exists due to the law of contradiction. Things such as a married bachelor or a triangle with four sides exist in no possible world. ‘I talked about this a little bit ago. Things breaking that law aren’t possible but that wasn’t my point. ’ + I am sorry if you feel that I am trying to change the burden of proof. That is not what I am doing. I was just pointing out that if God exists in some possible world, he exists in all of them, which mean he exists in the actual world. Therefore, if Gods existence is even possible, then if follows he exists in every possible world. The only way he would not exists in the actual world is if he could not exists in any possible world. ‘That is actually what you are doing. I’ll let it slip though, it doesn’t matter at this point. Again, and I’ll bold this to signify how important this is, a possible world is an exclusive idea that is totally irrelevant to reality or any other possible worlds. ’ 1. Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? + Not at all! I believe KeytarHero gave an example like this (all credit to him). If I said I had a brown dog with 4 legs what kind of evidence would you need? Just to see the dog. If I said I had a purple dog with 6 legs what kind of evidence would you need? Just to see the dog. Extraordinary claims do not require any extraordinary evidence. Just regular evidence. ‘Ok, this argument wasn’t resting on the adjective extraordinary. I’d say that seeing a god would be pretty extraordinary though. Regardless of what you call the evidence, you don’t have any for your idea of a god. ’ 2. "Concepts for the creation of our universe such as the Big Bang Theory have been observed, such as the expansion of our universe [1]. We are just studying concepts such as the Big Bang and are finding evidence. " + The big bang theory is not contrary to the existence of a maximally great being. The maximally great being could have caused the big bang to occur. ‘Pro took what I said out of context here. That is bad conduct. What I was saying about the Big Bang is that a god is not required with the theory. We have an explanation for how the universe started without a god involved. ’ 3. "Every idea of religion was made by people. There is no legitimate proof to the contrary. Religion was arguable created by people's need to know the unknown. " + I think everybody can realize this is just the genetic fallacy. Even if religion was just created because people want to "know the unknown" it does not make it false by any means. ‘I didn’t say that religion was false by this, I was pointing out a fact about religion. ’ I don’t want to paste Pro’s conclusion because I am running out of characters to use! Basically, he agrees that a possible world is irrelevant to reality and he talks about how my banana example is flawed. I apologize for not being able to copy what I said before he responded but there wasn’t enough room.