Divinity is real in some form

Introduction My opponent has failed to understand the resolution and this will cost him the debate. It was his job to show that divinity exists in some form. Divinity is defined as the greatest thing that can possibly be conceived. I explained that the greatest thing we can conceive is an omnipotent omniscient being. This is supported by philosophers, as well as the ontological argument. The video posted by my opponent supports my definition. I fully explained how it was possible to conceive of such a being, and my opponent offered no refutations. The only protest he voiced was "my opponent must explain HOW we can conceive him. How does he work? Where does his power come from? How was he created? What does he look like? These questions can't be answered, or can be conceived. We can't conceive where gods power comes from. We can't conceive how he was created. My opponents argument is entirely based on the fallacy that we can conceive an omnipotent and omniprescent god (again, conceding the debate). I'll ask my opponent this, and one more time, how can us, as humans, explain how god was created or how he has his powers? " Of course my argument the previous round completely nullifies this. Nowhere in the definition of "conceive" does it say "fully understand". It literally says "imagine". He would be immaterial, or able to take any form, so what he looks like isn"t a real problem. All of the other questions could be equally applied to unicorns, but that does not mean I can"t conceive/imagine unicorns. My opponent fails to provide actual reasons of why we couldn"t conceive of such a being, whereas I provided numerous examples and evidences of how easy it is. Now that we are aware of exactly the type of being that can be classified as divinity, which Pro must show exists, it is up to him to meet that burden of proof. He has failed to do so. He does repeatedly reference the ontological argument, but he has not presented the ontological argument. His video does and I will address that separately. He makes the bold claim that "My opponent has this the other way around. It's HIM who has to prove a perfect god is conceivable. For something to be conceivable, you must explain every detail and how it can come to be", and this is just dishonest debating. I"m not advocating a "perfect god", but a greatest possible being that is conceivable. I can conceive of a flying spaghetti monster, but can I definitively tell you every detail and how it can come to be? No. The definition of conceive easily validates my position. I"m curious if my opponent even read the definition of conceive. I also want to point out that the link after my opponent says "Here is a PDF file explaining the exact same fallacy the opposition has commited. " is just a link to an explanation of the ontological argument. The funniest, most incorrect, and most dishonest thing he says is "Let's not forget, everytime he affirms the definition of divinty (greatest possible thing conceivable), he is conceding that divinity exists. I am sick of refuting fallacies, and I'll try to talk to my opponent in PM after this round on why they are fallacies. " This is just not true. Maybe in that PM I can explain to my opponent why fake accusations of concessions are a dishonest debating tactic. He has failed to explain the nonexistent logic behind this claim. Fallacy? My opponent has seriously confused the ability to conceive with the status of greatest possible being conceivable. I have refuted this several times. We can conceive of a being that is not only as smart as us, but omniscient and omnipresent. That is a greatest possible being conceivable, and that is the being my opponent must argue for. The Universe argument is a little more difficult to explain but just as flawed. Basically my opponent says that since the universe theoretically contains everything the universe is divine. There is a false equivalency here. Two different universes, the actual universe, and the theoretical universe that contains a greatest possible being conceivable are being considered. The second one could be classified as existence, the first could not. My opponent seems to confuse the two. My opponent has made no progress giving evidence for a greatest possible being, so he cannot say he has shown the existence of the second type of universe. The BoP is unfulfilled. Now, my opponents been talking a lot about fallacies, and I find it incredibly ironic that in his argument entitled "refutation of fallacy" he makes this claim- "Unless my opponent can prove that there isn't a greatest conceivable thing, then he is conceding that divinity exists. " Any novice debater will notice the huge fallacy in this. He is shifting the BoP. In his round 1 rules he stated "the BOP resides on me proving that divinity more than likely exists. " Remember that the definition of divinity is a greatest possible thing conceivable. He dishonestly states that I have to prove divinity is impossible, and if not it by default exists! This is just dishonest debating and downright shameful. Pro: I"ve Only Been Straw Manning Con If You Actually Read the Debate ATTENTION: This quote is funny "I am certain the opposition is confused now. He keeps stating that a perfect being can be conceived, yet he's saying it's up to me to prove it. Which led him to accusing me of strawman. Listen, you brought up the contention that a perfect god can be conceived. It is up to YOU to prove and explain how this being exists. " I actually only have to show that such a being is possible, which I have done several times. It is YOUR burden of proof to show that the being exists which has not been done. My opponent severely misunderstands the concepts of possible existence and actual existence. Again my opponent accuses me of fallacies "There was so many fallacies in what my opponent said. " but provided no evidence. Saying fallacy a lot won"t make my argument fallacious. I suggest evidence next time. Ciceric Theory I did not drop this contention. My opponent is completely lying. My opponent again makes the flawed claim that being able to conceive all things means you are divinity. I will give my third and exact same complete refutation of this point. By definition we think we are able to conceive all things because we are not aware of what we can"t conceive. Therefore we think we can conceive all things but this is not proven. "[P1] Humans are capable of explaining (conceiving) all things [P2] Divinity is the greatest thing that can be explained (conceived) [C1] Humans are divine" The logic is also flawed. Going off of P2 that means the "thing" being explained would be divinity, not the person doing the explaining. If I can explain a greatest possible being to you, that doesn"t make me divine, it makes the greatest possible being divine. "Everytime you make an assertion, and in this case, that humanity isn't capable of explaining all things, YOU are required to prove it. " This is also incredibly flawed. My opponent is the one making the assertion, just look at P1. This requires support, which he has failed to give. I also gave an argument against P1 at the top of section 4. Xenoic Theory "[P1] The universe contains all things that exist [P2] All conceivable (explainable) things exist within the universe [C2] The universe is the greatest possible thing in which can be conceived. " I"ve actually refuted this several times. See my rebuttal titled "Fallacy? " in this round, 2nd paragraph, as well as the rebuttals entitled "Xenoic and Aurrelic Theory" from the past two rounds. To summarize, a universe which contained an omnipotent and omniscient being would be greater than a universe that did not. Pro has not shown the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being, so he has not shown that the greatest possible thing exists. It is simply a fallacy of equivocation; he is attempting to make the actual universe and the greatest possible universe be the same thing. P2 is also unsupported since it is possible there are immaterial and nonphysical beings outside our universe. "He must prove, to negate this contention, that the universe doesn't contain all forms of existence. If he fails to do this, as he already has, then the resolution is affirmed. " What? ? He"s trying to shift the BoP again? He apparently things that if I don"t prove the opposite, then his claim is confirmed, which is an obvious fallacy. My Opponent"s Requirements Here is apparently what I have to do to win. "C1: Prove that a perfect god can be explained (The entire fallacy in which his arguments are rooted)" Again, I"m not arguing that a perfect being is possible. I"m saying that it is very easy to conceive of a greatest possible being which would necessarily omnipotent and omniscient. C2: Prove that science and reason aren't capable of explaining (conceiving) all things in the universe This is the positive claim in your argument, so you have the BoP. Either way I completely refuted this in round 3. "Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of an invisible immaterial undetectable pink unicorn godess. Point is proven. " Did Pro actually read my arguments? C3: Prove that the Universe, the "entity" that contains all existence, isn't the greatest conceivable thing" Another shifting of the BoP. This is not even a proper syllogism since he concludes with a challenge. "So, by the rules of debating, my opponent may not switch his arguments at this state of the game. " After carefully skimming over the rules provided by my opponent in round 1, I have concluded that this rule was invented in the last round by my opponent and does not stand. I never, and still do not intend to make new arguments, I just wanted to point out yet another flaw in my opponent"s arguments. He also breaks his own newly invented rule by introducing the ontological argument in the final round, so 7 point forfeit! Just kidding, I"ll give him a pass on that one. The Video Pro now apparently wants to give the ontological argument, which he has not yet used, in video form in the final round. I"m confident you aren"t allowed to make an argument solely through videos so this should be ignored. I will briefly address it for any of you picky voters out there though. This is for you. Rebuttals: Existence is not a predicate- Existence adds nothing to the essence of the greatest possible being. IF a triangle exists it necessarily has three sides. You cannot say that IF a greatest possible being exists, then he necessarily exists. Equivocation- The term greatest possible being actually means two things here. 1. The idea of the greatest possible being and 2. The greatest possible being. Then apparently Pro puts the last nail in the coffin with this quote! "". .. you cannot use illogical arguments to disprove logical arguments for the existence of god". Which directly relates to when the opposition attempted to use a "perfect god" to disprove a logical argument on divinity, IE, a illogical argument attempting to disprove a logical one. " Basically he is saying that my argument is illogical, and his is logical. Next time he should consider explaining how his opponent"s argument is illogical and fallacious instead of just calling it illogical and fallacious, otherwise people might think he"s lying. Conclusion Throughout this debate, my opponent has lied, used numerous fallacies, and been a downright dishonest debater. He claims I"ve conceded numerous times but failed to ever quote me or provide actual evidence. His arguments are weak and completely unsupported. When you read his arguments, it almost seems like he is hoping voters will skim the debate and vote for him because he is accusing me of concession. It is important that people thoroughly read the debate before voting because his tactics have been shameful and dishonest.