The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[Esquilax]

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.

It's only incoherent when framed in reality, which we've already kind of abandoned to talk in the purely philosophical terms that the ontological argument requires. "Maximally great being," is an incoherent concept being deployed with no set definition, the idea that possible existence could lead inexorably to necessary existence is similarly incoherent, and yet we're being asked to countenance them. The fact that my rebuttal doesn't work in the real world is simply an outgrowth of the fact that the ontological argument doesn't work in the real world.

Because all I'm doing is working according to the criteria of that argument, you know.

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?

If that non-existent argument were somehow persuasive and effective at accomplishing the goal of granting you victory in the debate, then yes, it would be greater, given that it doesn't have a limitation that an actually existing argument would have. But this isn't so, mostly because in the real world arguments need to be expressed in order to be communicated; you are aware that when you change the noun in an argument, you're actually changing the argument to a degree that reductio ad absurdum no longer applies, yes? You can't change what I'm actually asserting as much as you have, and then still act like you're making my position look ridiculous.

But let's simplify, then: do you agree that limitations are counter to the quality of greatness? That the more limitations a thing has, the less great it is in comparison to identical objects with less limitations? Like, if I had two watches of identical make, but one had a battery that lasted two hours, and the other had a battery that lasted ten, the one with the more limited battery life is the less great watch, yes?