Ontological arguments make God's existence at least slightly more likely

To begin, I would like to thank Con for responding so promptly (affording a courtesy that I have been unable to reciprocate) and to say that this point here has really opened my eyes; “Pro simply proved that God doesn't exist! How? I'll show it here:P1: God existed before all things (Definition – See Round 1)P2: Existence is by effect (Pro's assertion)P3: If God exists, then God existed by effect (from P2)P4: If God existed before all things, the God didn't exist by effect (because there was no effect before it to effect it)P5: God didn't exist by effect (P1, P4)C1: God doesn't exist (P3, P5)” No, I have not just conceded the debate, I am actually rather happy where we are right now. The point above demonstrates to me that my premises are at least well understood, if not accepted (albeit, reservedly) by Con. With this last round I will address some of Con's assertions, and provide a final summary of my argument. R1: “I think the reason it's [to mean Existence] difficult to define is simply because the definition is very basic and very intuitive. We don't need to explain to the reader what actual existence is. However, the best definition to existence is "to have an objective reality"” [sic] -Con “If a lone thing exists, then it simply exists (objectively, rationally and actually)! ” [sic] -Con What Con is arguing here can be simply stated “To exist is to exist and nothing more can be said about it! ” Although I will grant that this assertion may not be entirely indefensible, he certainly has made no effort to defend the statement here and so it remains a baseless assertion. With that said, I would like to make something very clear, I do not believe things cannot exist on their own, in fact I believe that all things in the world would be perfectly fine separated from the rest of reality, with the exception of exactly one special variety of thing: Those things which are not composed of parts. R2: Argument From Ignorance. “However, Pro made a poor defense point. He challenged me to give an example of something that exists and yet does not affect another existent thing. If I fail to do so, he argues that his argument would be true. [. .. ] his argument is called an argument from ignorance [2] (When one argues that something is true because it's not proven false). ” -Con Although Con does ultimately concede the point, he first makes sure to inform us that my challenge was an Argument From Ignorance, and this is simply untrue. Had I neglected to provide evidence for my claim, demanded evidence to the contrary, and proceeded to declare the point won when no contradictory data was provided, that would've been a blatant abuse of logic. However, I provided a straight-forward 5 point syllogism to support my conclusion before presenting Con with three options; expose a flaw in my logic, provide a counterexample to my conclusion, or concede the point so that we may move on. Is this not reasonable? R3: I disproved God. “P1: God existed before all things (Definition – See Round 1)P2: Existence is by effect (Pro's assertion)P3: If God exists, then God existed by effect (from P2)P4: If God existed before all things, the God didn't exist by effect (because there was no effect before it to effect it)P5: God didn't exist by effect (P1, P4)C1: God doesn't exist (P3, P5)” [sic] -Con Con's reasoning would be sound if only this argument could not be just as well applied to the law upon which it is built. Proof That The Law of Existence By Effect Did Not Exist Before All Things: 1. Assume that the Law of Existence by Effect exists. 2. To exist is to effect another existent thing. [P1] 3. If something does not effect another existent thing, then it does not exist. [P2] 4. If the Law of Existence by Effect existed before all things, then there is only one thing that exists. 5. If there is only one existent thing, then that thing cannot effect another existent thing. 6. Therefore, The Law of Existence by Effect cannot exist before all things. God is defined as that which “existed before all things and was not created. ” As you can see in my original argument, I suggest that the rule “To exist is to effect another existent thing. ” as well as natural law in general, also cannot exist alone and so also are things before which God must exist; “Now for the final step, what happens when we remove a part from this triad and make the system of the universe just a tad bit simpler? Nothing happens. Once a member of this triad is removed the two left behind are left with no way to fulfill the conditions sustaining mutual existence and so cease to be things altogether […] as I stated passingly earlier in the argument,the "abstract medium" of this triad, the medium which has just ceased to exist is natural law or logic itself. We wanted nothing and we got it [. .. ]” -Myself “So what happens now? If logic/natural law truly is that medium through which things happen and so must also be the governing force responsible for separating those things which may and those which may not happen, then shouldn't nothing. .. and everything happen? [Now that we have removed them to achieve “Nothing”] ” -Myself Summary of My Argument: 1. Assume that Natural Law is a thing that exists. (Natural Law in this case is simply that which says what may and may not happen. ) 2. Natural Law dictates that “to exist is to effect another existent thing”. [see Proof of Existence by Effect] 3. If something does not effect another existent thing, then it does not exist. [P2] 4. If Natural Law existed before all things, then there is only one thing that exists. 5. If there is only one existent thing, then that thing cannot effect another existent thing. 6. Therefore, Natural Law can not exist before all things. [P3] 7. Therefore, all possible and impossible things happen. [P1] What does this conglomerate of all possible and impossible things look like? +If it exists before all things, even natural law, then it is uncreated. +If it exists before natural law, then it is free of the restrictions of natural law. It is omnipotent. +If all impossible and possible things happen, then everything may exist and this conglomerate, as well as every part of it, must be all things, or at least have all forms of all things. It is omnifarious. +If it possess all forms, and minds are things that can be had (and even if they aren't) than it possesses all minds. It is omniscient. +If it possesses ALL minds, and humans have minds, then it possesses all if not infinite human-like minds. It is personal. If God is; A personal, omnifarious and omnipresent, as well as "intelligent, omnipotent and omniscient supernatural being that created the universe(s) or is the universe itself, existed before all things and was not created. " and this conglomerate is all of those things, then this conglomerate is God. Jesus is good, Satan is bad, and Hitler was bad too.