The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[Esquilax]

The overall concept of God is pretty clear and consistent on greatness and hasn't been formulated just for this argument. The typical omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect descriptions apply. It is not like the maximally great being in premise 1 is different than the conclusion 6.  In addition, like I said in a previous post, even a limited grasp of God's properties does not entail that our conception of God is false because it would be impossible to have full knowledge of God. 

So then the reductio ad absurdum continues to be a problem for you: I propose a being that is omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect, but also has the capability of restraining your god. Since it's logically possible for such a being to exist, it exists necessarily according to the premises of your own argument, your god is no longer omnipotent and hence, no longer a maximally great being. A similar scenario can be described for my proposed being, and so on, and so on, down the line. Infinitely greater maximally great beings, within the confines of an apologetic system that explicitly denies the possibility of actual infinites or infinite regress. Premise one of the argument is therefore falsified.

While greatness might be subjective, maximal greatness is not. It is not incoherent to say that a property such as omnipotence does not having a maximal degree. If a description of God allowed for a greater being, then God would not be God because that being would be God and the definition becomes a logical impossibility. That is why I do not think this undercutting of premise 1 of the Ontological Argument has been successful.

Maximal greatness is just as subjective as anything else: you believe your god to be maximally great, whereas my estimation of his whole theology precludes him from maximal greatness entirely, on the morally perfect score if nothing else. Thus, subjective.

And the problem, which you seem to be missing, is that every description of god allows for a greater being to exist, by dint of being a description of god: in being described that god now has a target painted on its back that is trivial to hit. Your god is omnipotent, my maximally great being is too, but to the degree that he can prevent your god from being omnipotent. You might respond that your god's omnipotence prevents that from happening at all, but all that does is put your god one step higher on the hierarchy, in a way that can be topped simply by submitting a being capable of preventing your god from preventing that, and so on. There's no way to resolve this, outside of not positing an extant god at all, which is obviously not something you want to do.

It's not so much that your god wouldn't be god, as it is that your god stops being maximally great at the point in time where his attributes are defined and thus are capable of being surpassed. In defense against this, you keep relying on terms that are themselves nonsensical and logically impossible: what does "maximally omnipotent," even mean? How would you define that term in such a way that would prevent me from using the extreme outer edges of that power set to make an even more powerful set of my own? What the hell is the upper limit on omnipotence?