It is illogical to refute the possibility of God

By the very definition I put up, it is clear that I am referring to the God of Christianity, who is the Supreme Being of all. It can't be Zeus, because the Christian God is superior to him by his very traits; Zeus is not omnipresent, omniscient, or omnipotent, but the Christian God is, making him superior to Zeus, therefore "God" as defined in my first round, is the God of Christianity. Just to clarify which God I meant. Your reverse ontological argument is worded in a rather confusing manner, but I deciphered it none the less. One sentence will suffice to rebut your reverse ontological argument. God is omnipresent, so he exists in all words. My opponent himself stated that God is omniscient, potent, and benevolent. Clearly if God is omnibenevolent then anything he does is good automatically and by default. I really don't even need to say any more than that, but just to pass the time (currently in line at the post office) I will. God knows everything past, present, and future, so it stands to reason that he is a lot smarter than my opponent or any human being for that matter. He also has more insight and foresight, so logically he would be the authority of what is right and what is wrong. Whatever he does might not be good in your eyes, but eh what do you know, you're just a stupid little human compared to him. It would be like if something as insignificant as an insect were to try and make the case that it is wrong for us humans to make homes wherever we want because we're taking up their space. Or a more realistic example would be a toddler that is mad at his/her parent for scolding or punishing the child. The toddler thinks the parent is wrong for reprimanding him/her, but what does he/she know? The parent clearly knows better, and knows that punishing the toddler is for his/her own good. It is logical for a person with blue-green blindness to say that the sky is not blue to him/her, but it is not logical for him/her to say it is not blue period, to all people. His/her experience does not hold true for everyone. It is especially illogical for him/her to make that statement if he/she is aware of his blindness (which he/she most likely is). It is logical to attempt to refute something that is logical, and it can be logical to do illogical things. However, this does not add any strength to your premise that it is logical to refute the possibility of God. The academic pursuit to refute the possibility of God is logical, but actually refuting the possibility of God is not. Just like the academic pursuit to refute the possibility of ghosts is logical, but to refute the possibility of ghosts with absolute certainty is not. Now let's say the amount of knowledge in the world is quantifiable and is equal to 100%. If you were to try and quantify the amount of knowledge you had in relevance to the amount of knowledge there is in the entire multiverse, would you say that you possesses even 2% of that knowledge? I presume that you wouldn't. Now let's say that I have you pick who you think is the smartest human being on the face of the Earth, would you say he possesses even 2% of all the knowledge there is to know? I presume you wouldn't. Now let's go even further and quantify the knowledge of every single human being on the face of the planet and add it all up. Would anyone reading this debate say that this amounts to even 2% of all there is to know? I would presume not. What's my point? My point is that is it not possible that God exists somewhere in that 98% of knowledge in which we do not know? I encourage my opponent and readers to think about this.