It is impossible for God to not exist!

Joy.. I would like to ask voters to forgive me if they have seen my previous debates, as I am going to recycle one of my old arguments. A priori stance of non-existence This argument is a stronger version of Occam"s Razor and "Burden of Proof", and gives ground to a higher probability of a proposed entity X not-existing a priori. This is also a formal placing of the burden of proof onto the person arguing for the existence of God, as it at the very least establishes a formal possibility of God's non-existance. This is before we assess the evidence and positive arguments in favour of God"s existence, which I argue have been unsatisfactory in mitigating this argument.[1] A: A priori, it is more likely that God exists than it doesn"t (assumption) P1. If A is true, then all entities are more likely to exist then not (a1, a2, a3" etc) P2. a1 is mutually exclusive to a2, a3... etc. P3. a2 is mutually exclusive to a1, a3... etc. ... Ad infinitum C. A entails a contradiction (2 & 3"ad infinitum), therefore A is false This can be applied to each and every one of God"s attributes (as defined), such as Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being for instance, so any being defined as "omnipotent" with different attributes (such as only finitely intelligent, or completely unintelligent, non-conscious, not the creator etc) would be impossible, yet all these putative entities exists as plugs for 2&3. Pro can contest P1, but then our justification for assuming God more likely to exist a priori falls, and in either case a standalone argument can be made. P1. All entities are more likely to exist then not a priori (a1, a2, a3" etc) P2. If a1, then not a2 P3. a1 is more likely to exist than not (from p1) P4. a2 is more likely to exist than not (from p1) C. P1 entails a contradiction (2 & 3"ad infinitum), therefore P1 is false The only premise that can be objected to here to maintain a high a priori likelihood of something"s existence is P2, but this would require Pro to reject the notion of contradictory properties, which is prima facie absurd. Hence the conclusion follows that only a case of special pleading would allow God to escape this argument. The most reasonable stance is to accept the non-existence of God. Possible Worlds Without God For me to refute the notion 'It is impossible for god to not exist' I can simply propose a logically consistent world in which God plays no role. If such a world is possible, then it is objectively possible that god exists, because for it to be impossible that God exists it *necessarily* entails God exists in every metaphysically possible world. Such examples have been proposed by Sean Carrol, with simple mathematically self-contained universes with a single particle in them. While they are certainly not *our* world! they are still a logically consistent possible world! and if God necessarily exists, then he must exist in all logically and metaohysically possible worlds. However we have examples of worlds without God, which is a contradiction.[1] Conclusion: I do hope my opponent takes this debate more seriously, I will offer rebuttals next round. References: 1. http://youtu.be...