It is illogical to refute the possibility of God

Thanks for the quick response MikeyMike. 1) The reverse ontological argument Stating that God is omnipresent is not sufficient to disprove the reverse ontological argument. It is merely part of the definition of God; it does not prove his existence nor disprove any of the premises of the ontological argument. My opponent does not question any of my premises. It is still valid if I add omnipresence to the definition of God: 1. God is a being who necessarily exists and is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. 2. Necessarily existent being are beings who exist in all possible worlds. 3. Anything that is not logically impossible is "possible." 4. It is possible that God does not exist, i.e. there is a possible world in which God does not exist. 5. If there is a possible world where God does not exist, then God cannot exist in all possible worlds. 6. God is not necessarily existent. 7. God does not exist. Premise 4, which follows from premise 3, would also be sufficient to prove that God is not omnipresent. My opponent's argument is essentially a tautology: God is omnipresent because he is omnipresent. My opponent tries to define God's omnipresence into existence. 2) The problem of evil My opponent's response is another tautology: all God's acts are defined as benevolent because God is omnibenevolent. This is a logical fallacy. He is just begging the question. His other response is that God is smarter than me so supposedly God has a good reason for killing babies with infectious diseases. However, the Judeo-Christian God tells us in the 10 Commandments that killing is objectively wrong. Yet he kills small children with impunity. Some good and evil acts can be agreed upon objectively. A parent scolding a child is *subjectively* wrong in the child's eyes. However, killing a 1 year old child by infecting her with malaria is *objectively* evil. Even if God's acts are benevolent in the end (in his grand plan), then my opponent still does not answer the argument that omnibenevolence contradicts omnipotence, since God is powerless to perform acts that are evil according to his master plan. It is perfectly logical to refute the possibility of a specific God existing with specific characteristics. 3) My opponent's burden I specifically said in the previous round that my opponent needed to offer a proof of God's existence so I could logically refute it by questioning its assumptions or its use of logic. He fails to do so. Saying "refute X" when no propositions in favor of X have been offered is a logical fallacy called "demanding negative proof." My opponent says it is illogical to refute the possibility of ghosts. However, given the properties of ghosts, it is logical to refute their existence. 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. 4) Unknown knowledge as a proof of God My opponent essentially argues that because humans do not possess all knowledge, God could exist in the unknown knowledge. This is just a fancy version of the logical fallacy called the appeal to ignorance. For example, "Big Foot exists because no one has yet disproved his existence" is an example of the appeal to ignorance. It is equally valid to believe that God does not exist in the unknown knowledge. In addition, 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. 5) Definition of logical Random House: logical = "reasonable" http://www.definitions.net... It is reasonable to refute anything. Switch side debate in competitive debate forces debaters to endorse positions in which they do not necessarily believe. Debaters are forced to refute propositions in which they actually believe. It is reasonable to refute anything. I still win my refutation that the sky is not actually blue. Blue is a subjective experience. Each person sees a slightly different shade of blue, so it is incoherent to even say that something *is* a certain color. We merely perceive it as such. In addition, the sky is blue for a different reason than a painting is blue. One actually has blue paint on it; the other has to do with the bending of light. So it is not actually blue itself. The same argument can also be used against my opponent. It is logical to attempt impossible logical refutations or impossible mathematical proofs precisely because the correct proof may be sitting in the knowledge that humans do not yet possess. And we will not find these solutions without attempting refutations. So it is logical to refute even that which is currently deemed "impossible to refute."