He is still saying that I am wrong about God being ontologicial in some way 
The truth is that I am not wrong, but I am being attacked in that "I am not basing my theories in reality." This is common from atheists which wish to disprove claims of believers in God, just destroy the whole premise. MY arguement is simply stating that to have a coherant belief in God one must put a basis on the presumpsion of there being any such thing, whatsoever as ontologicial, that is omnipotent etc God in ANY general way. This is the most direct path to the entire arguement I feel. Using truth to assert that God must be ontologicial and therefore real. It also is the only arguement which supposes direct truths toward God being necessarially a first cause without any prior presumpsion, as you can clearly see. So in a way if we do use this theory to base upon any correct ontologicial arguement, it is very possible that we are correct in our presumpsions that any God we state that is the true God is indeed confirmed as the true one. There is no need for questioning this as you can see. All further that would be required is a direct physical proof of God, showing that he indeed can be confirmed as existing in physical reality, to support the proof that he exists "ontologically" as well.
The truth is that I am not wrong, but I am being attacked in that "I am not basing my theories in reality." This is common from atheists which wish to disprove claims of believers in God, just destroy the whole premise. MY arguement is simply stating that to have a coherant belief in God one must put a basis on the presumpsion of there being any such thing, whatsoever as ontologicial, that is omnipotent etc God in ANY general way. This is the most direct path to the entire arguement I feel. Using truth to assert that God must be ontologicial and therefore real. It also is the only arguement which supposes direct truths toward God being necessarially a first cause without any prior presumpsion, as you can clearly see. So in a way if we do use this theory to base upon any correct ontologicial arguement, it is very possible that we are correct in our presumpsions that any God we state that is the true God is indeed confirmed as the true one. There is no need for questioning this as you can see. All further that would be required is a direct physical proof of God, showing that he indeed can be confirmed as existing in physical reality, to support the proof that he exists "ontologically" as well.
