The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[RoadRunner79]

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.

At this point, I am questioning if you are using an uncommon definition of "exist", and would ask you define it. Do most atheist use it this way? I think it may give new light, to when you say that God does not exist... if you are consistent.

In Merriam Webster and a few other dictionaries, "being" and "exist" are somewhat circular (referencing each other), so I would say that according those definitions your reference to a non-existing being; is incoherent.

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.

Somewhat.... and I agree. But according to what I am learning here, apparently I can have a non-existing argument; declare victory, and that is greater than having an actual argument. Would you disagree?