The Ontological Argument is a Failure

You'll remember my contention that the OA commits the fallacy of equiovcation and secondly, one cannot define a being into existince; therefore, the OA does not prove that a Judeo-Christian type god exists. In order to respond to these problems, my partner states the following: (1) To prove that one cannot define a being into existence; and (2) my partner used a modern formulation of the ontological argument known as "Godel's Ontological Argument. " Unfortunately, as we will see, the GOA commits the same fallacy. ==Defense of my case==1) One cannot define a being into existenceIn order to prove this point, I will substitute "God" for being "X" If X exists by definition, X exists. X exists by definition. Therefore, X exists. The fallacy committed here is the fallacy from circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is a fallacy in which the proposition is proved to be true implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. [1] In this case, the proposition is proven by premise 1. Now, let's substitute for other stuff: If the flying spaghettii monster exists by definition, it exists. The FSM exists by definition Therefore, the FSM exists. So, we begin to see that we can make anything exists by defining it into existence. As mentioned earlier, this is circular reasoning. ==Refutations==My partner has used the GOA as his sole defense of the ontological argument. As I will attempt to show, the GOA proves absolutely nothing. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is what you argue [2]: Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive. Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i. e. , strictly implied by—a positive property is positive Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive. Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i. e. , possibly exemplified. Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent. Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing. Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. The major problem with this argument is that it is (once again) circular reasoning and has parodies which are logically valid using this syllogism. Likewise, another major problem comes with the fact that it still is circular reasoning. Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive Here is the problem with this definition, the standard definition for "God" has negatives in it. For example, to say that God is "all-knowing" or omniscient is the same as saying that there is nothing that God does not know. To say that God is omnipresent is to say that there is nowhere where God is not. Therefore, we can change the positive definitions of God into negative definitions. Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails BYet again, defining stuff into existence. Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified Here is where you are defining stuff into existence. Once again, circular reasoning is shown. What basis do you say "X" necessarily exists? Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive. As we saw with my examples, for every positive property, we can change it into a negative property. For example, the Christian God is defined as almighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true. [3] We call this a "negative theology", namely, that God's nature can never be fully comprehended by mortal finite beings. For example, immutable means that God does not change; infinite means that God has no limits; invisible means that GOd cannot be seen etc. [4] Therefore, one can say that I concede this axiom. Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i. e. , strictly implied by—a positive property is positive The problem is that God is not strictly implied by a positive property as we have just seen. This is called negative theology. Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive Or negative if we take the negative theology viewpoint as already proven. Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive False. The rest of the argument collapses from here. Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified. This is a case of circular reasoning once again. One cannot define a being into existence; likewise, God has negative properties as well as positive properties. Conclusion God has both negative and positive properties. The argument commits circular reasoning by definine God into existence. God does not necessarily exist by definition Vote affirmative! ==Sources==1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...2. I have organized his wording from . http://plato.stanford.edu...;3. Quoted . http://webspace.webring.com...;4. Ibid