Why not deism?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Exactly.  The points in the argument to be considered are 1) If God exists, then God is maximally great and 2) a maximally great being would have necessary existence (otherwise it would not be maximally great).

Linguistically, this is precisely the same thing as saying, 'If God exists, then God exists'. It doesn't matter how we define 'maximally great' or 'possible worlds' or any of the rest of it.  We are asked to imagine something that, definitionally, we cannot imagine.

Another, slightly snarkier, way to restate the argument is, 'I think, therefore God exists.'

Ontology is just silly.

Boru

I liken the argument to someone trying to prove an unprovable mathematical conjecture by arguing it's true because it's possibly true and if possible true, necessarily true.

It's a very bad way of proving in other words.

I liken it to hollowing out a gourd and filling it with hot sauce and marbles - kind of intriguing, but essentially pointless.

Boru