It Is Possible That A Maximally Great Being Exists

Once again, I thank Con for instituting this debate. As per the rules, I will make my opening argument in this round and will not argue in the last round.To add some context, we are debating the first premise in Alvin Plantinga's formulation of the Modal Ontological Argument. The argument goes as follows:P1: It is possible that a Maximally-Great Being exists (MGB).P2: If a MGB exists, then it exists in some possible worlds.P3: If a MGB exists in some possible worlds, then it exists in all possible worlds.P4: If a MGB exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world.C: If a MGB exists in the actual world, then a MGB exists.We will not be debating the argument as such, I will only be defending the first premise in this debate. Before I begin, I would like to define what a MGB is.A MGB is a being that exhibits all great-making properties to their maximal extent, and no lesser-making properties. A Great-making property is any property that is better to have than not to have (e.g. love, power, wisdom, etc.). This includes the property of Necessity. A lesser-making property is one that is worse to have than not to have (e.g. corruption, greed, etc.).So my case will rest on two points: 1) No one has ever shown God's existence to be logically impossible, and 2) That we have warrant for accepting God's existence as possible.1 -- No one has ever shown God's existence to be logically impossible.In the Modal Ontological argument, the first premise states the following: "it is possible that a MGB exists." This doesn't mean, "well, a MGB may exist or it may not exist. We just can't know for sure." What this actually means is that it is logically possible for a MGB to exist. In order to argue against its logical possibility, it must be shown to be logically incoherent. No one has ever shown God's existence to be logically incoherent, so God's existence remains a logical possibility.The most popular argument to try and show the logical incoherence of God is the Omnipotence Paradox, which essentially states "Can God create a stone so heavy that even he can't lift?" But this amounts to a logical absurdity. It rests on a misunderstanding of the word "omnipotence." Omnipotence does not entail the ability to do the logically impossible. It just means "almighty in power." The question is just logically meaningless. It's like asking if God can create a square circle. God can't, because squares by their nature have four sides and four corners and circles have none. So there can't exist a square circle. Just like any stone God could create, he could lift.2 -- We have warrant for accepting God's existence as possible.There have been many arguments put forward for God's existence. There are many formulations of the Cosmological Argument (even if you don't think the KCA works, there are other formulations like Thomas Aquinas' and Leibniz' which don't require that the universe had a beginning in time to succeed), the Teleological Argument, the Axiological Argument, the Argument from Contingency, and many other arguments which give us warrant to accept the first premise as possibly true. Obviously, I don't expect Con to argue against every single one of those arguments. Space would not allow it, plus it would just be unfair for me to expect that of him. But my argument here doesn't rest on whether or not any or all of those arguments are true. My argument here just simply shows that we have warrant to accept the first premise as true.Since we have warrant to accept the first premise as true, and God's existence remains a logical possibility, the first premise of the argument stands affirmed.With that, I'll turn things over to Con and await his rebuttal.