(June 18, 2016 at 11:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(June 18, 2016 at 7:58 pm)Irrational Wrote: 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.
As I understand it, the modal ontological argument formulated by Plantinga (which Craig's argument is based on) is that if it is possible for a necessary being to exist, then he exists in actuality. Under modal logic, if something is necessary and can possibly exist, then it actually exists. For the record, Plantinga argues that a maximally great being is one that is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-good. So going by that definition, then the question is about the logical possibility of the existence of such an entity.
Your argument overall is good. Another good one I've seen, by the way, that counters this version of the ontological argument is this one:
