God probably exists. (Version 2).

If God is defined as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent creator of the Universe that is described in the Bible, then it follows that God would be the greatest being in which no greater can be conceived. What being could be conceived to be greater (meaning maximal, not subjective)? Could there be a being that is more great? By no means! For who could contemplate two beings that are equally maximally great? One of them must be the greatest. Now, how we define omnipotence is important. When philosophers and theologians think of an omnipotent being, they think of a being that can do all things that are logical, nothing more. That means that God cannot create a married bachelor, since that would go against that definitional "form" of both properties/predicates. Hence, God cannot make Himself not omnipotent, by making a rock that is too big for Him to lift. However, if we define this being as capable of being able to make a rock bigger than He can lift, then He could do the logically impossible, thus, also making Him able to lift this rock that cannot be lifted. Now, if we take into consideration all of these things, then we can determine that it is possible for there to exist a being in which no greater can be conceived. Moreover, when one thinks of God, and when one looks at the definition, then it follows that regardless of the circumstances of the world, He would still be the greatest being that is possible. Hence, we can derive another definitional aspect of the being: God is necessary, not contingent. In modal logic, things are split into the possible and the impossible. The impossible is the logically absurd, such as a married-bachelor. The possible is further spilt into two separate sections: contingent and necessary. Contingent things are things such as unicorns or the tooth fairy; hence, they exist in some possible world, which is defined in modal logic as a possible reality, or series of variables. Necessary things are things that apply to all possible worlds (i.e. shape definitions). As Alvin Plantinga defined, so too will I define the following: a maximally excellent being is a being that maximal in some possible world, while a maximally great being is a being that is maximally excellent in every possible world. From this, we can determine that God would fit into the maximally great slot definition. Therefore, we derive the following: (1) A maximally great being is possible. (2) A maximally great being exists in some possible world. (3) A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Refer to the definition of maximally great) (4) A maximally great being exists in the actual world. Most (keep this in mind) philosophers believe this argument to be one of the best, if not the best, arguments for God. The majority tend to deduce that God must either be necessary or impossible. Furthermore, God is a supernatural entity and cannot be truly explained via natural phenomena, thus, rendering science useless here. Continued, in modal logic, all things are possible until proven impossible. Hence, it is up to the atheist to prove that God is impossible. How is God impossible? I displayed earlier, with the omnipotence "paradox", that most objections to the nature of God are complex and illogical questions from the start. They are almost equivalent to asking whether squares have 2 or 3 sides: it doesn't make sense. Therefore, I leave the question as to whether God is possible to my opponent. Kant's objection is pointless here, since being is not the predicate here, nor the subject of determining greatness (except to display that God would always be the greatest being possible). Gaunilo's objection is also pointless, since no other thing has the properties to determine it to be maximally great; many objects are also incapable of being maxed.