The existence of a God

Modal Ontological Argument Pro misunderstands the argument at premise 2. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. WRONG: Just because something is possible, doesn't mean that it is real. It either could be real, or it could be just possible, but not real. The premise is not “If it is possible God exists, he exists in reality.” The premise is “If it's possible God exists, then he exists in some possible world.” Pro missed the word “possible world”. If you agree with P1, then you inescapably agree with P2. Because P2 is basically saying the same thing, but moving a little further. If it's possible that God exists, then he exists in a possible world (hypothetical reality). We weren't even at the real world yet. The argument went unrefuted and was misunderstood by Pro. My opponent wants to assert that everything possible is also real. That isn't what the argument is saying. It can only be true if it's maximally great. You can't flip the argument to something else, since nothing else can have the property of being maximally great other than God and thus can't necessarily exist. You state something such as a maximally great island exists and make an OA argument from there. However, the argument would fail in P1, since a maximally great island can't exist because it has space. If something has space it can't be maximally great. TAG My opponent wants to assert, "The immaterial, absolute, perfect, and transcendent source is God". Again, that's a claim without evidence. That's the conclusion. I said that after I gave the arguments for it. I just didn't claim it without giving reasons for believing it. You can't just quote mine my conclusion and say it's my argument. Pro states We know for a fact that the natural Universe seconds after the Big Bang, did not have the same properties and laws as it does today. First, this is uncited. Second, Pro contradicts himself right after It is possible, that the Big bang itself is the immaterial, absolute, perfect, and transcendent source The Big Bang couldn't be the source, as if it didn't have the same properties and laws, it wouldn't be absolute. It's also hard to say the Big Bang was perfect, research shows the Big Bang was chaotic from the start [1] [2]. Far from perfect. The Big Bang would've been a part of the universe, and therefore not transcendent. My opponent has also attempted to claim "If the universe didn't exist, the absolutes would"Where is the evidence for that? Right after I said that. “It would be true that something can't be itself and not itself at the same time.” Also the evidence was also in the P2 justification. The absolutes weren't shown to be found in nature, it was only argued that they're a product of nature. Again, we should find them in nature if this was true. Pro ignores all this and still claims I gave no evidence. Conclusion *Pro misunderstands the ontological argument and didn't refute it *Pro keeps quote mining my conclusions and stating I gave no evidence *Pro failed to give a natural source of the logical absolutes. Thanks, let the voting go! [1] http://www.northwestern.edu... [2] http://www.space.com...