What do you think of this argument for God?

[Nonpareil]

If you want to consider the above examples subjective, then so be it. I can't argue with someone who just says the same things over and over and over again the same way

Because you haven't actually answered them, Steve.

If you want me to provide new material, you need to actually start dealing with what's presented.

even when presented with an argument that philosophers of all types consider to be sound.

Steve, you yourself pointed out that Maydole's justification is contentious at best, and has been attacked from a variety of different angles by philosophers other than myself. I think that you have an exceptionally warped view of how the ontological argument is actually seen by philosophers.

Outside of people who explicitly study philosophy of religion (and those who regularly debate those people), no one cares about it, regardless of whether they believe in God or not. It is important only from a historical standpoint, because it influenced a lot of other Christian philosophers. It is not, and has never been, considered particularly coherent or convincing. It has been ripped apart from every angle, including the ones that I employ, since the day it was put forth, even by other theist philosophers.

"Maximal greatness" is an incoherent concept. It cannot be established that it is possible for a maximally great being to exist. If you wish to move beyond that, into the details of specific formulations, it cannot be established that the human mind can actually conceive of maximal greatness, and so on and so forth.

I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's not going to change.

Even if God exists, the ontological argument does not succeed in demonstrating it.