Why not deism?

[GrandizerII]

At work.

I think with the modal ontological argument, it's more like if you concede the first premise then God exists in at least one possible world and yet, God being maximally great means he is a necessary entity. So if God exists in even one possible world he has to exist in all possible worlds, including the actual. S5 modal logic allows this to happen, but ultimately it's just a trick with words.

Isn't the modal ontological just trying to 'Define' somthing into existance?

After all, some of the attributes ascribed to dieties defy/break/are fundamentally impossible within reality.

Cheers.

It presumes the possible existence of that which is eventually concluded in the argument. Yes there's a definition beforehand for maximally great being but I don't know if it's really defining something into existence. It's more like it's a trick of logic to get from logical possibility to metaphysically necessary.

But I do agree some of the attributes do seem to be logic defying and you can therefore use that to argue against first premise I guess. That or just challenge the theist making the argument to prove the premise.