A few more things that you need to be corrected on:
Err, no. Continue to one up and at one point you will get to the true greatest being. You know that you can't "one up" perfection right?
You continuously miss the point. Every other individual will continue to claim their "God" concept is the greatest being. You are under the false (and dare I say arrogant) assumption that eventually, each and every individual will conclude that your
definition of "God" must
be the greatest being. You will all be locked in a stalemate stating to one another, "No, MY God is greater than yours" unless you can somehow manage to convert each and every one them
to your concept of "God" (which they are at the same time attempting to do to you). Do you comprehend this now?
I am the one imagining the perfect God. A greater God than the Islamic one what else than my opinion do you want?
From the Muslim's viewpoint: "I am the one imagining the perfect God. A greater God than the
Christian one". Your claim is no more or no less valid than the Muslim's (or anyone else's). Go ahead and attempt to use your ontological argument in real life against a devout Muslim and see what happens if you don't believe me.
NO. I will argue with him that my God did not kill anyone. (Noah's story is not factual)
And the Muslim would then correctly point out that not only is this speculation on your part, the fact that your Holy Book contains so many "not factual" stories would lead one to wonder if anything in the Bible can be trusted at all.
The point again is you and everyone else who throws their hat in to the ring must defend your candidate for which "God" is "the greatest". You have not satisfied this requirement.
Yes I did
No you did not.
I should have start with "Do you know any other evidence of immaterial beings than philosophical evidence or testimony (personal opinion)?" Then I would've stated "Since no one seems to find/know any other evidence, could we agree that Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings?"
Poltergeists. If you remember, I made this point that you never addressed back in post #59.
Nothing? You sure? Poltergeists by their definition are also immaterial, yet can manipulate objects and interact with their environment which can most definitely be tested and verified (evidence) using equipment such as EMF Meters, Full Spectrum Cams, EVP Recorders, etc.
Mind you, I do not believe in poltergeists, but then again I am not the one "defining" them in to existence.
"Philosophical conjecture and personal opinion does equate to evidence when you talk about immaterial beings" continues to be a fallacious argument.