The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[Edwardo Piet]

Premises 5 and 6 are redundant. Premises 2 and 3 are failed attempts at logical entailment. Premises 1 and 4 I accept so here is what Craig is left with:

Premise 1: It's possible that a 'maximally great being' exists.
Premise 4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

He is left with "A maximally great being is a logical possibility in any and every world and if it does exist in every world then it exists in our world."

The same applies to the FSM. It's a logical possibility, meaning it's not a logically self-contradictory concept, and if it exists in all worlds then it of course exists in ours.

Here is a way to use the logical fallacy of equivocation in Craig's favor:

Premise 1: A maximally great being is a logical possibility.
Premise 2: A maximally great being is logically possible in all possible worlds.
Premise 3: If a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds then it exists in our world if our world is a possible world.
Premise 4: Our world is a possible world.
Premise 5: Sneakily commit the equivocation fallacy by equivocating logical possibility with possible worlds.
Fallacious conclusion: Therefore a maximally great being exists in our world.