Plantiga's ontological argument.

[Mystic]

Arguments don't have that ability. Imagine the greatest island, yadda yadda yadda.

There is several problems with this type of refutation.

Can there be a greatest Island? Or is it the case, it can always be greater?

The same with pizza. A person. Etc...

Or can't a greatest island have various co-equals....hence would not be neccessary.

For example, there can two beautiful women that look different but are equally beautiful, if objective beauty exists.

The same maybe be true for ontologically the most beautiful women possible.

Then we have further problems, in that, we know it's not necessarily so, in the real world. Which we don't know in the case of a necessary being.

Another problem is that an island is momentarily, and hence is not eternal, and could not have always existed, by definition, and hence can't be necessary.

So these refutations of this particular form of ontological argument, while funny, are not very logical.

Even if it was one model by definiton, one ultimate car for example is possible, the fact you can have different instances of it, show that one instance of it (those various parts/essence) aren't necessary...hence all this is not problematic in refuting the reasoning.