The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[KevinM1]

I'm not particularly tied to this argument (actually just started learning about it last weak), but I think that the comments here are interesting.
My comments below in Red.  

[quote
Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great' being exists.

Craig is conflating a possibility with a hypothetical idea. Hypothetically you can posit the idea that a 'maximally great being exists' but that in and of itself doesn't make it possible. If you want to say that something is possible, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is possible. All Craig does is assert that it is, with no evidence and flawed logic. As Hitchens rightly says, anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 

I don't think you understand, what is meant by possible here, and in regards to possible worlds.   This is saying that it is logically possible or that there isn't a logical reason to reject it.  It is an argument from pure reason
 

If this premise can be accepted "Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great' being exists."

Then this premise must be accepted "Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great' being does not exist."

Which leads to "[i]Premise 6: Therefore a maximally great being does not exists"[/i]

[i]"Conclusion: Therefore God does not exist. "[/i]

Yup, it all goes back to the modal version of the term 'necessary', which means 'cannot possibly be false.' There's nothing inherent in a tri-omni being that precludes it from being false. It's necessary because theists who worship a tri-omni being demand it to be so in order for their argument to work.