The Modal Ontological Argument - Without Modal Logic

[Darkstar]

the argument was constructed such that there should only be one controversial premise, the first premise. every other premise and conclusion logically follows from that one premise. thus, the only way atheism could be correct is if it is impossible for God to exist. the mere possibility of his existence implies his actual existence.

Objections:
1. you are merely defining God into existence-- no, I am using the typical generic definition of God (non religion specific) to show the contradiction of God being contingent. when this is ruled out, the only options left are his necessary existence or his impossible existence (which would have to be due to self contradiction).

I am going to stick to the first objection. With this "proof" of yours, you can "prove" the existence of literally anything that is defined as omnipotent and is not self-contradictory. Also, just because a god is technically conceivable, how does this mean one can exist? Is it possible for anything to be omnipotent, and can one really conceive of true omnipotence (i.e. infinity)? Does this mean that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is also real? How about an omnipotent and godly pink unicorn or an infinite mystical space cheeseburger, or...