By definition, God must exist

My opponent gave a poorly worded argument in the second round and only introduced his real argument in the last round so I am forced to do the same. If he wants to do a more thorough argument, he can provide his rebuttals in the comments, or start a new debate. 1) God is a maximally great being (he has all the great-making properties possible for a being). 2) It is greater for a being to be necessarily existent than to not exist C. Therefore God necessarily exists. In the first premise God is greatest in the world of ideas since he has not been shown to exist yet. The second premise said that this God in the world of ideas is greatest if he exists in real life. So since God is greatest in the world of ideas, and to be greatest in the world of ideas, you have to exist in real life, God exists in real life. Note that the first premise is only proposing an idea of God as the greatest being possible when it defines him as maximally great instead of defining him as the greatest imaginable being . This is because if God is defined as great in every imaginable way, logical contradictions start developing. God could make 1+2=3. He could make a stone he cannot lift. He could get rid of evil without any negative consequences whatsoever like violating free will. He could make a universe that does not need him to exist, a logical contradiction. So philosophers realized that some things are impossible for anyone to do even God. So if we define him as omnipotent but only in the way that he can do all things, and things are actions that are real, then God can do all things that can be done. So lets try to define some actions. Lets try to define actions A, B, C, D, E. A, B, C, D are things that can be done and E cannot. Does this mean we can define a being who can do A, B, C, and D? Possible actions rely on a definition of an actor. Actions are only possible if they have the right actor. In this example, A, B can be done by a giant body with a lot of mass and heat, and C and D can be done by something with a mind. Since we have no proof that it is possible for something with a lot of mass and heat (like a star) to also have a mind it is possible, that you can only do A, B or C, D but not both. So it is not valid to assume that just because individual actions can be done by something, this something can be consistent for all these actions. My conclusion is that we have no evidence that a maximally great being, that can do all possible actions is even possible. There may only be a set beings that together can do all possible actions. Given the possibility that the first premise possibly defines a logical contradiction, you cannot assume his existence by trying an add the ability of existing to a logical contradiction. Second refutation This argument tried to define an idea of God in the first premise since his existence is not yet proven at that point. He must exist in the world of ideas in the first premise or else we are just assuming he exists which is illogical. How can a God in the world of ideas have traits in real life? Is it even possible to add traits in real life to an object in the world of ideas? Sure, we can add abilities in real life to this idea, but these are only ideas of actual abilities. So we can only add the idea of actual existence to God, or the idea of building planets, but we cannot add the actual ability of existing or actually building planets to an idea. Another problem is that with this argument, I can propose the existence of many maximally great being. I can begin the same argument but then say: 1) Two Gods are maximally great beings. 2) It is greater for them to be necessarily existent than to not exist C. Therefore both Gods necessarily exists. Or 1) Define a maximally great pig (Imagine a maximally great being while still being a pig). 2) It is greater for a being to be necessarily existent than to not exist C. Therefore the Great Pig necessarily exists.