It is illogical to refute the possibility of God

Thanks MikeyMike. My opponent unfortunately doesn't understand the difference between a definition and an assertion. 1) Reverse ontological argument I'll explain the function of each line for clarity. 1. God is DEFINED as a being who necessarily exists and is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. [from the definition of God] 2. Necessarily existent beings are beings who exist in all possible worlds. [definition of necessary existence] 3. Anything that is not logically impossible is "possible. " [definition of logical possibility] 4. It is possible that God does not exist, i. e. there is a possible world in which God does not exist. [from premise 3] 5. If there is a possible world where God does not exist, then God cannot exist in all possible worlds. [from premise 4] 6. God is not necessarily existent. [from premise 5 and 2] 7. God does not exist. [from premise 6] My opponent keeps saying "but bluesteel already conceded that God is omnipresent and necessarily exists. " This is not true. Bluesteel said that the definition of God REQUIRES him to have those traits and then goes on to disprove one of those traits. I'll offer an analogy for clarity. Logical argument: Premise 1: Zombies are undead beings that exist. [definition of zombies] Premise 2: Life after death is impossible. Premise 3: Undead beings cannot exist. Conclusion: Zombies do not exist. Just because premise 1 says that zombies exist does not mean that the conclusion is invalid. And just because premise 1 says that zombies are undead that doesn't mean that it's possible to be undead. The reason my opponent's argument is a tautology is because he uses premise 1, by itself, to proves God's existence. So his counter-argument to the ontological argument is essentially: Premise 1: God is a necessarily existent being who is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Conclusion: God is omnipresent. My opponent is merely restating the definition of God. He is essentially saying "God is omnipresent because he is omnipresent" or rather "God is omnipresent because bluesteel said the definition of God includes omnipresence. " This is illogical. If I define unicorns as "beings with horns who exist," then using the same style of argument, unicorns must exist because their definition includes existence. My opponent hasn't refuted the reverse ontological argument AT ALL. He doesn't question any of the premises or the transitions between them. 2) Omnibenevolence Again, my opponent confuses the definition of God with what I agree to. When I say "God is omnibenevolent," I mean that the definition of God requires him to be omnibenevolent, not that I agree that he actually is or can be. My opponent commits another tautology here: "all acts that God commits must be benevolent because God is defined as omnibenevolent. " This is clearly flawed. I can define bluesteel as an omnibenevolent being, but that doesn't mean that if I kick a puppy, that act is benevolent. In fact, kicking a puppy would prove my definition is flawed. In the same way, the problem of evil proves that the definition of God is flawed and thus he cannot exist as posited. My opponent goes on about the 10 Commandments, but he clearly doesn't understand the idea of objective morality vs. subjective morality. There are certain acts that are objectively wrong, such as killing someone. Yet God kills people all the time, striking them down with diseases, cars, and bullets. My opponent claims all morality is subjective but across all cultures, murder is viewed as wrong. My opponent then cuts and pastes an argument about the different types of omnipotence. He never says which of these versions he is advocating so you can't really accept this argument. I never liked the argument that "God's omnipotence only allows him to do things that don't contradict his other powers, thus nullifying his existence. " But regardless, my opponent never explains this argument so it's unfair for you to vote on it. At the end of the day, evil exists in the world and God can prevent it. If he is omnipotent, he could prevent evil and chooses not to, making him not omnibenevolent. If he is unable to prevent the evil, then he is not omnipotent. 3) I don't really want to argue about ghosts anymore. 4) Unknown knowledge My opponent agrees here that is is possible that God does not exist in the remaining human knowledge, which means he agrees to premise 4 of the reverse ontological argument, which leads to the conclusion that God does not exist. Once my opponent agrees to premise 4 of the reverse ontological argument, he can't win. Regardless, observations and logic are not the same. The reverse ontological argument and the problem of evil are logical arguments, not arguments based on observation and empiricism, so my opponent's arguments here about the observable universe and the scope of human knowledge do not apply. If omnipotence and omnibenevolence are contradictory, then it doesn't matter if we don't know everything, God can't exist. Lastly, even if there is an unobservable omnipotent and omniscient being lurking in the "unknown," there is no guarantee that this being is omnibenevolent. Most of the arguments for God could still work if he were omni-nefarious ("all evil"). I don't intend to keep arguing about ghosts and the sky. 5) Definition of logical Logical just means reasonable. As long as human knowledge has not all been discovered, it is possible that a proof exists even if something is currently thought to be "impossible to prove. " So even if my opponent wins that it is impossible to disprove the possibility of God, refuting said possibility is still "reasonable" because we believe that we may discover a yet unknown proof that *will* disprove God's existence somewhere in the unknown knowledge. In the same way, mathematicians still attempt "impossible" proofs in the hopes they will somehow discover how to solve it. So even if my opponent wins, he loses, since he doesn't respond to this semantics argument. It is always "reasonable" to refute the possibility of God. Whether or not you like the above argument, you need to vote on it because my opponent drops it and thus concedes to it. 6) Burden or proof My opponent could have presented the Ontological argument or the Cosmological argument to prove God's existence, but all he does in this debate is demand negative proof. He doesn't present a case of his own. This is an illogical way to argue and is an independent voting issue.