What do you think of this argument for God?

[Angrboda]

The main problems with this argument is with 1 and 3. First, "great" is a value statement which is contingent upon the subjective viewer. The question is, what constitutes objective greatness? 1 is simply an assertion with no basis in reality than what anyone would personally think to be true.

3 is false since greatness is logically separable from logical necessity. Value statements have no basis in possibility. Just as you can't derive an ought from an is, you can't derive an is from an ought. 

Elvis Presley is a great being to many people, I can say that he is a necessary being. It would be no less accurate to say that than to say God is a necessary being. The assertion that God is necessary has no justification. Maximal greatness is subjective if you accept that greatness is subjective, since the measurement of greatness would be subjective, it would apply to whatever you would measure to be the "greatest".

That is a common objection, but there are answers to it. I posted a response a few pages back that I will repost below. Great making properties of god are not subjective like a preference to Elvis' music. These are not properties subject to tastes, aesthetics, etc. It is also important to note that it doesn't matter to the argument if we can even comprehend them. 

There may be answers to it, but you haven't provided one. All you've done is regurgitate Maydole's flawed argument and asserted that it is sound, along with a bunch of irrelevant material and objections. Properties aren't better to have than not have, objectively speaking. Until you can show that they are, you've got nothing but a bunch of logic resting on an incoherent definition. Note that it isn't enough to say that you would prefer to have x rather than not have x, you need to show that the universe as an unfeeling body cares whether you have x or don't have x. This I strongly doubt you can show, because the universe as a whole has no opinion on the matter. It is not enough just to assert that some properties are better to have than not, you have to show why. Until you do, you're just spinning your wheels.