The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[Esquilax]

The flaw is with premise 1. The others are fine.

Not so much: a lot of the other premises are predicated on existence being a requisite for maximal greatness, something that the argument never justifies. Now, I'm sure it's Craig's personal opinion that existence is necessary for maximal greatness, and that's super convenient for him, but I wasn't aware we all just had to play along with Craig's subjective idea of what constitutes greatness.

The big problem, though, is that "maximally great being," isn't a logically coherent concept, and is in fact, logically impossible, because "greatness" is not a quality with an upper bound. Any extant purported "maximally great being," could have the title taken from it by an imagined being that's identical, except slightly more great than the being under examination, and since we've abandoned objective evidence in favor of logical arguments to take the ontological argument seriously at all, it's no less a valid point that premise one is. So basically, any "maximally great being" ceases to be so the moment it's objectively real and, hence, quantifiable.

I know I've posted this before, but it really does sum up the eminent ridiculousness of the ontological argument: