The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Sheldon]

Plantinga's modal ontological.

 I still can't post links, but this seems like a problem to me:

(31) Necessarily, a being has maximal excellence in every world only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection in every world. 

Leaving aside the fact that moral perfection is subjective, we live in a world with ubiquitous suffering, can we really imagine a notion of moral perfection that stands idly by, and does nothing to prevent the rape and murder of a child for example, if it could so easily prevent it? Of course I am not a professional philosopher, but if an argument doesn't accurately reflect objective reality, isn't that a problem for that argument? 

It also seems like he simply trying to define something into existence, as other philosophers have pointed out in opposing argument. For example he defines maximal greatness as necessarily possessing omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection, we could as easily posit a maximally evil being, this might even better reflect objective reality given my previous objection. 

There are also semantic problems with both omniscience and omnipotence. where each definition creates rational contradictions of course. Omniscience for example would certainly seem to present problems for any notion of free will, or autonomy of choice.