There is no proof that God exists

However he has failed on many points, especially since we have specified that we are talking about the Christian God. To Begin Con states that “One does not have to show that a world where a pig flies is logically or metaphysically possible”. This is true, and I feel he is missing the entire point. My point wasn’t saying that a world in which a god exists is impossible, in fact I think I even said “We do not know whether it is possible or not”. I did not make any claim that something was impossible. My point was that, like any positive claim ever made, it must meet a burden of proof. His only proof was that “There is nothing contradictory in the concept of God”, which within the confines of the God in question, there clearly is. Therefore it has still not met its burden of proof. This argument isn’t for any God, as we have both agreed, it is for the Christian God. As Con has stated, there cannot be any contradictions to the concept of the Christian God. In fact, for the Christian God to possibly exist in any possible world he must be, as agreed on both sides, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc. And he must also be, the Christian God, as stated in the Bible. Otherwise he is simply not that God. If he is not that God, then this is not proof for that specific God in which we have agreed on. This is why, although Con disagrees, what is stated in the Bible about this God must be very much taken into consideration. Omnipotent Con states that “A maximally great being would have omnipotence independently of any Bible verses”. I agree, If a God were to exist, that god would have to be all powerful, regardless of any bible verses of any religion. However, If the Bible of the Christian God states that the Christian God cannot triumph over Iron, then he is clearly not relatable to the Great Being of your logic, and is clearly not omnipotent. Even if we were to take on board that a god can only be powerful to the limit that it doesn’t contradict his other characteristics, it does not explain why he is weak to Iron. Con puts forward that “free will is good, and beings with free-will entail the ability to do evil. It would be wrong to interfere with our free-will, so it is no shocker than evil exists”. However, If God is all creating, he CHOSE to create this specific world, with this specific outcome. If he is all knowing, then he already knows our choices, thousands of years before we are created. The very notion of free will would be an illusion at best, for if we have the ability to do evil through free will, he already knows if, when and how we would act upon it and chose to create this specific world where we make these specific choices. Omnipresent & Omniscient etc. Con simply states that God has these qualities ”regardless of The Bible. “. This clearly backs up my case that the Christian God within the Bible is contradictory to these properties right off the bat, because otherwise, we would not find contradictions all the way through the bible. Either we are talking about the Christian God which adheres to the Bible, or we are not. There are contradictions with all of the “great properties” when it comes to the Christian God. Another very obvious example would be omnibenevolance. When God can be held directly accountable for well over 2.3 million deaths in the Bible, and Satan can be only be held accountable for 10 and those are with gods permission[1], can we really call God omnibenevolant? In day to day life, would we consider someone who kills 2.3 million people to be a good person? More good than someone who killed 10 with the first persons permission? What about when we then consider that he knew his choices when creating the world would lead to having to kill 2.3 million. He could have created a world that would result in less death, for he can do anything, and knows how all of his choices will play out. A Maximally Great Being Lets try this another way, without bringing in contradictions with any other aspect of Gods nature, we’ll keep it to the aspect in question itself. Can God create a rock so heavy that even God himself cannot lift it? If so, then the rock is now unliftable by God, limiting the Gods power, and meaning that he is not omnipotent, not because it conflicts with any other aspect. I would also like to interject that you have added restrictions to Gods power regarding the any conflict with the other aspects of gods nature, while in your opening round stated “If we are not thinking of an absolutely unlimited being, we are not thinking of God at all”. This creates a problem simply based on your own assertions that God is absolutely unlimited (Round 1) and that God is limited by his own aspects of nature (Round 2). The Modal Ontological Argument Con asserts that this part had failed as evil is not a great making property and God could not be evil. I think he has missed the point entirely as I was not asserting an evil god, I was asserting a perfectly evil being who was omnipotent and omnipresent. Where the God you are asserting would be omnibenevolant, the perfectly evil being would be omnimalevolent. It would still be a being to the highest of powers, but grounded in evil rather than good. There is no moral argument here as good and evil are just opposite ends of the spectrum. Some people would put forward that evil is just the absence of good, but good could quite as simple be the absence of evil, and neither allows for morally neutral actions. We could just as easily put the logic to this being, and would come to the same conclusion that it must exist. And as stated, you can’t have 2 omnipotent beings. You could do it another way and use this logic for any number of Gods grounded in other religions, morally good or bad, they cannot all exist side by side, but by your logic they could exist. Therefore, again, your logic is not proof that this God exists. Possible to Actual I would like to add something else here. In premise 2 Con has stated: "If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. ". For this to be PROOF, you would have to prove the possible worlds in question are more than just philosophical thought. It seems you are mixing up that which is possible with that which is actual. You have no proof that such a thing exists somewhere, and to say that it MUST, needs proving, beyond the fact that you just accept it to be true. At most, you could say that if a being is possible in some world, it is at most, POSSIBLE in all worlds. Above that, you need proof. To say that if God is possible, God must be actual, is a logical fallacy. It in itself is certainly not proof of existing. In conclusion There is no evidence that it is possible that a maximally great being exists. There are direct contradictions between the maximally great being and the God of Christianity. Premise 2 is a logical fallacy, being possible is not an evidence of actual existence. The overall argument is flawed, and allows for multiple greatest beings.