The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[RoadRunner79]

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.

How is it incoherent when framed in reality?  Previously I asked, what your definition was of "exist", because in it's common usage, a non-existant being is contradictory by definition (like a square circle).  I don't understand what your reference to "in reality" means here.  I am also confused, because on one hand, you say there is no set definition but it is incoherent.  I take this to mean, you don't know what it is, but it is incoherent;  could you clarify this?  You had said that " the idea that possible existence could lead inexorably to necessary existence is similarly incoherent".  This is what the argument is about, and it lays it out in the logic.   If you don't understand, then perhaps you should ask, or do some research.  If you think there is a mistake, then you should present your case for that.  The argument is dependent on the definition, and doesn't work with just anything.

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?

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?

It would depend on what you are calling a limitation, and in what context.  In your example of the watch, I would agree (all other things being equal).