Lane thinks that it is eminently more reasonable than the idea that a maximally great being doesn't exist
Heh - since when has reality had to conform to our ideas of reasonableness!?
I question the claim that it is possible that a maximally great being exists, and want to see the argument, along with the evidence which confirms it is possible. It's the old equivocation between 'possible' meaning 'could be true, but we don't know' and the meaning 'not ruled out by what we do know'.
The MGB is not ruled out by what we do know, but there is nothing that we do know that rules it in as a possibility. So hence why I question the first premise. It might be possible, but no argument or evidence has been put forward to suggest that it actually is. As proofs go, since it relies on this premise, it falls flat on its face in the most spectacular way.
I can provide proof that it is possible to draw a King of Hearts from a standard deck of cards. Can anyone provide similar proof that an MGB could exist?
if something is not impossible, what other area could it fall in except possible.
Do you know that it is not impossible. If you do, how have you established that? It's the same question, asked with the negatives, as 'how do you know that it is possible?'
So how do you know that it is not impossible?
I believe that is all that is involved in showing it is possible, is to demonstrate it is only one of two choices and it doesnt directly contradict itself. What more do I need for it to show that its a possibility
Establishing that it doesn't contradict itself doesn't show that it is in fact possible. It might be possible, but then again, it might be impossible. If it was self-contradictory, it would definitely be impossible. If it is not self-contradictory, it still might not be possible (other facts may rule it out).
How do you know it is possible for you to draw a King of Hearts until you do it?
I know based on the evidence that I am holding a standard pack of cards. I might be wrong, of course.
You are basing your definition of possible on having seen it or done it before. That means everything that you have not seen or done before is not possible.
No, I just ask that if you are going to say it is possible, you have to show that it's possible.
In order to know it is possible that I pull out the King of Hearts all I have to do is show that by the rules of card markings, one of the cards must be the King of Hearts. There are four suits in a standard deck, hearts is amongst them. They are labelled A-10 then J Q K. Therefore, amongst the possibility space for a deck of cards is one that has the heart suit with the King rank. With some reasonable tentativity we now know it is possible.
In order to know if God is possible, you have to know the rules that govern reality. From those rules you should be able to see if God is permitted by them. If God is permitted by the rules of reality, then it is indeed possible, within realms of reasonable tentativity.
That is a difficult task, of course, but if you aren't up for the challenge, I urge you to take back the claim that God is possible and instead use the phrase 'God is not ruled out by anything we know', which is the more correct phrasing and consequently dissolves the ontological argument.