Plantiga's ontological argument.

[Mystic]

Is the Necessary Being a male with threefold Personhood (Yahweh-Jesus-Holy Spirit), or male and singular (Allah, Judaism!Yahweh)? Is the Necessary Being female with a threefold Personhood (the Triple Goddess of the Wiccans), or female and singular (Atana Potnia)? Does the Necessary Being predestine some to salvation and others to perdition (Calvinist!Yahweh) or grant humans free will (Arminian!Yahweh)? Is it a One, True God (the Abrahamic monotheisms), does it manifest itself as hundreds of gods and goddesses (Brahman), or did it create gods and goddesses different from itself (Atum)? Etc., etc., and so forth.

Since there's an endless array of proposed Necessary Beings, each as likely as the others, there is no way to identify a single one as "the" Being that is Necessary in all possible worlds. Any sort of personal being is, by definition, one of many possibilities, i.e. it is this person, with these values, personality attributes, etc., rather than someone else. So, a Necessary Being cannot be a person.

Now, maybe you could argue for something along the lines of "Being-as-such" being Necessary--not a being, like a god or goddess, but the state of Being. In order to meet the standard of "Necessary in all possible worlds" this sort of Being would have to be so basic and fundamental, so metaphysically simple and undifferentiated that it would underlie all beings in all possible worlds without having any individual personhood of its own. It would be more akin to "the Tao," "the grand unified field" or "the spacetime manifold" than anything anyone could worship. But then, this wouldn't serve Plantinga's purpose, would it?

I think I may agree with you except on one thing. It can be that it is a basis to reason and logic including morality, and these things by their nature if true, are not somethings that can possibly have been otherwise. So to attribute ultimate moral perfection to it, can be a necessary trait in all worlds.

In this case, while we don't know what perfection or ultimate morality is, or what the perfect personality is, they by definition are one.

If we say ultimate morality can be anything in any possible world, it would make morality contradictory, and we are simply choosing to stick to believe in a morality we are familiar with.

---

Chew on this for a moment, though. Even if your first premise here isn't flawed, this becomes a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth

I don't get it. You'll have to explain.