The Plantingan Modal Ontological Argument is sound

I will now defend the argument.Begging the question?I maintain, that the argument is not question-begging if I manage to argue soundly that it is possible that God necessarily exists. If I do not manage to do this, then I concede that the argument is indeed question begging.So, is it possible that God, as a necessary being, exists? Firstly, I must establish whether God is necessarily necessary.Consider the definition of God as 'a maximally great being'. Such a definition entails that it is necessary that God is necessary, as otherwise God would not be maximally great (and hence present a contradiction). Logical contradictions are necessarily false, so the negation of a logical contradiction is necessarily true. Therefore, God is necessarily necessary.Something is possible if it is true in at least one possible world. God being necessarily necessary entails that God is necessary in all possible worlds (as per modal logic). Hence God is necessary in at least one possible world. In other words, it is possible that God is necessary, which is the premise upon which S5 modal logic concludes that God necessarily exists. This is because if it is possible that God is necessary, then God is necessary in at least one possible world. Therefore, in some possible world, it is true that God exists in all possible worlds - but this can only be the case if God exists in all possible worlds. Therefore God exists in all possible worlds if it is at least possible that he does.I think Con's issue with the argument is that he does not realise that the argument is essentially a demonstration, insofar as it demonstrates, as opposed to argues, that it is necessary that a maximally great being exists by logical necessity and implications of the definition. The argument would be fallacious if the initial premise (that it is possible that God necessarily exists) is unsupported, but it is not. It is a logical implication of the concept of a maximally great being that such a being is necessary, otherwise there would be a logical contradiction.The reason it exists as, and is perceived as, an argument is that, prima facie, the proposition:'It is possible that a maximally great being exists'does not seem to entail that this being necessarily exists, but this is only because of the intricacies of modal logic.But when thought about, it becomes clear that the above proposition logically entails that a maximally great being necessarily exists, for the reasons explained above.One may ask whether I am justified in presenting this proposition as true. Just to make sure, I will reiterate why it is possible that a 'maximally great being' exists.P1: Something is logically impossible if, and only if, it 'violates the laws of logic, and is therefore inconsistent or self-contradictory' (1)P2: A maximally great being does not violate the laws of logicC1: A maximally great being is not logically impossible.C2: A maximally great being is possible.P1 is uncontroversial, and I do not have the burden of proof to argue that P2 is correct. This is because P2 is a negative premise and it is impossible to prove a negative. Con has the burden of proof to demonstrate that a maximally great being violates the laws of logic.Therefore the conclusion is justified, that it is possible that a maximally great being exists.Finally, my opponent argues that the argument can be used to prove the existence of fictitious entities such as Superman. However, the parody does not work because nothing in the definition of 'superman' entails that he is necessary. In contrast, the very definition of 'maximally great being' entails that this being is necessary, otherwise there is a contradiction.In order for Con to refute the argument, he must either:1. Prove that it is not possible that a maximally great being exists, by proving that such a being violates the laws of logicor2. Refute the argument that:'it is possible that a maximally great being exists'logically entails that:'it is necessary that a maximally great being exists'Con has done neither so far, hence I affirm the resolution. (1) http://www.blackwellreference.com...