The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[Esquilax]

While it is not directly related to the topic, it is related to your objection.   That existence is not greater than non-existence.  This begs the question, of why you would make the choice.  If you reflect on that, then I think that you have the answer to your objection.  I think that it also answers you second objection as well.

I would make that choice based on a subjective desire for my own safety. This has nothing to do with whether an extant lion is greater than a non-existent one, but if it did, you'd need to rewrite your hypothetical to actually reflect the objection I made. Because you're missing out a key component of what I said, and if we add that back in, then the hypothetical actually goes like this: would I prefer to be in a cage with an extant lion, or with a non-existent lion with all of the same properties as the former, bearing in mind that the non-extant lion would still be able to maul me. You know, the maximally great non-existent being I was positing was still able to do the things that your extant maximally great being could do, so the non-existent lion would also need to do that: in that scenario my choice of which lion to face leads to functionally identical outcomes.

Wow.... is that really the way you think.... at this point, I'm wondering if no argument is greater than any argument.

Scoffing is not a rebuttal.