It is illogical to refute the possibility of God

This debate is not about proving if God exists, It is about proving whether or not it is logically possible for God to exist My opponent has a gaping hole in his reverse ontological argument. In the first two lines he accepts that God is omnipresent and is a necessarily existent being, which exists in all worlds. Then in his fourth premise he says that it is possible for God not to exist; this is a direct contradiction. If God is omnipresent, and is a necessarily existent being, which exists in all worlds, then God in fact exists in all worlds and there is no possible world in which he doesn't exist. A tautology is "using different words to say the same thing even if the repetition does not provide clarity. Tautology also means a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because the statements depend on the assumption that they are already correct."(1) My opponent already assumed and stated that God is omnipresent so I am not at fault in anyway. It is also by the very definition of God that he is omnipresent, my opponent accepted that we are arguing about the Christian God so he must accept his traits. 2)My opponent, of his own accord, stated that God is omnibenevolent, before I even said it myself. Then he goes on to say that God commits evil acts, which is a direct contradiction of his statement that God is omnibenevolent. Apparently my opponent did not understand what he himself said, so I kindly broke it down for him. If God is omnibenevolent (which my opponent stated he is) then everything he does is automatically good because he is omnibenevolent and the very standard of morality, deciding what is good and what is not. Then my opponent goes on to say more things he clearly does not understand, citing the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are rules set for human beings, not for God himself. That's synonymous to a teacher that tells her students "no cell phones in class" then the teacher herself uses her cell phone in class. The teacher is the supreme being of the classroom, and thus the rule does not apply to her. Why my opponent fails to realize this is beyond me. My opponent then tries to refute my toddler-parent analogy, by saying that some moral acts are objectively wrong or good, due to popular census. There is no objectivity when it comes to morality, what is wrong to you, might not be wrong to another person. All of this does not matter anyways, since my opponent has already stated that God is omnibenevolent, so whatever God does is good. Omni benevolence does not contradict omnipotence. The subject of God's omnipotence is an age old topic of discussion. The term omnipotence is an obscure one, having several different meanings. 1. God is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible. 2. God is able to do anything that he chooses to do. 3. God is able to do anything that is in accord with his own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie). 4. Hold that it is part of a God's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so. 5. God is able to do anything that corresponds with his omniscience and therefore with his world plan. The word "Omnipotence derives from the Latin term "Omni Potens", meaning "All-Powerful" instead of "Infinite Power" implied by its English counterpart. C3)My opponent attempts (and fails) to refute my ghost analogy; which is simply an analogy and not something that I even have to give a rebuttal to, but I will none the less. My opponent states "Ghosts are supposed to be the lost souls of people who were formerly alive. If you prove that the soul cannot remain on this Earth after death, you disprove the possibility of ghosts. If you disprove the soul, you disprove the possibility of ghosts. If you believe in empiricism and show that there have been no valid cases of ghosts contacting people, despite the need for the lost souls of loved ones to find closure, then you logically disprove the possibility of ghosts." I couldn't even begin to tell you how erroneous of an argument this is. If science has no way of comprehending what a soul is, what it is made up of, and its physical properties, how can it be definitively said that there is no possibility of ghosts existing? My opponent stating that there are no valid cases of ghosts contacting people is an absolutely useless statement. There have been no cases of two identical snowflakes, but it is not impossible for two snowflakes to be identical, it is very unlikely that such would occur, but it is still a possibility. C4)My opponent again accuses me of another logical fallacy, stating that I am guilty of appeal to ignorance. He attempts to liken my statement that it is "POSSIBLE for God to exist in the knowledge that humans do not possess", with the statement "Big Foot exists because no one has yet disproved his existence". These are two different things because in my statement I am arguing the possibility of something, while in my opponent's statement he is saying that something definitively exists. I agree with my opponent that it is equally valid to believe that God does not exist in that unknown knowledge; but the keyword in that statement is "believe" (think). Of course it is valid to believe that God does not exist in that unknown knowledge, but it is not valid to definitely state that for certain, God does not exist in that unknown knowledge. This means that the possibility of God still stands. "by the very traits of God, he is unobservable meaning that no human knowledge can ever prove his existence. So even if humans knew 100% of the facts about the observable universe, this wouldn't mean we proved God's existence." This statement by my opponent can mean a few different things. 1. If by God's very traits he is unobservable, and no human knowledge can ever prove his existence, then it is also true that no human knowledge can ever disprove his existence. 2. So even if humans knew 100% of the facts about the observable universe, this does not mean that we proved God's existence, because God is unobservable according to what my opponent says. Again, this would not disprove God's existence because humans only know 100% of facts about the observable universe; God is unobservable, so it is still possible that God indeed exists. The possibility of the existence of God is still upheld. At this point rebutting the rest of my opponents premises is just out for fun and out of courtesy. I don't know why my opponent made his statement about switch side debates and defending what you do not believe in, so I will not even waste my time with that as it does not matter. My opponent is correct that everyone sees a slightly different shade of blue, but it still stands that they are seeing the color blue. Those that do not see blue have vision deficiencies. Color is not just a subjective perception, but colors also have corresponding objective wavelengths(2). That's why it is correct to say that certain colors of light work better for certain plants because color corresponds to wavelength, and that is objective. In the pursuit of knowledge and edification it is logical to attempt to refute the possibility of something, but until actual evidence is found, it is illogical to definitively refute the possibility of that something, and since there is no actual evidence that it is impossible for God to exist, then it is possible he does exist. Since this is my last round, I will not be able to rebut anything that Con says after this. If my opponent fails to rebut a single one of my arguments that is possible that God exists, then I have won. Do the right thing, vote Pro I thank my opponent for an interesting and enjoyable debate :). References: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...