(March 4, 2017 at 4:55 am)Jesster Wrote:(March 4, 2017 at 4:43 am)TheAtheologian Wrote: This being would be independent of what we know, so it wouldn't matter what we all know is possible, just that this being is the greatest being possible.
"Greatest" would be a manifestation of every logical possibility.
Okay, use that definition if you want. So do you have this data on what's possible? We don't know to what point "greatness" is possible. Why call it anything until we know to what limit this "greatness" is possible?
More importantly, premise two does not follow at all from here. Show that any being is necessary first. This isn't a simple definition. This is assuming a necessity that has not been shown to exist. The "possible worlds" part is useless as well. Show that any single one of these other "worlds" (which I will assume is not pointing merely at planets) besides our own is even possible.
This all seems to be riding on the idea that anything is possible, which is not a well-backed statement.
That is the main problem with it, why assume this "greatest possible being" is necessary? If we do, then it is pushing the concept into existence, which can be done with nearly anything.
However, it does not ride on the idea that anything is possible, but bases itself on whatever is possible.
Hail Satan! 
