A Maximally Great Being Exists In No Possible World

Refuting My Opponent's Argument"My opponent suggests that if the MGB exists, it must be perfect because perfection is greater than imperfection. This sounds accurate at first glance, however we must remember that the definition of maximally is "the greatest or most complete or best POSSIBLE. " Yes, perfection would be the best possible. This is because, the very essence of perfection is that which cannot be improved upon. If you could improve this perfection in question, then the entity in question is not perfect. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my assumption in this aspect, and it is supported by virtual every proponent of the Ontological Argument. The problem is, the unlimited aspect, this is what makes a maximally great being impossible. "Therefore, if such level of greatness is not possible, it is not the maximum, and some lower degree of "greatness" will hold the title of "maximally great. "Any degree lower than perfection, is imperfection. Imperfection is incompatible with the essence of a maximally great being is supposed to be. If this being is any degree lower than perfect, then this being imperfect and thus, we have stopped talking about a maximally great being. Maximally is also defined as "being an upper limit" , which of course clearly contradicts the notion of an unlimited being. Regardless, it doesn't matter what level of greatness this being is at, if this being is at a perfect level of greatness, it cannot be improved upon even if it's level of greatness at an extremely lower level. However, it is greater to be unlimited than limited, and any degree less than unlimited, is limited, thus a maximally great being must be absolutely unlimited (to deny this, is to deny the very support for why this being has the ability to jump from some possible world to every possible world), thus there is no contradiction in this being improving his greatness. This is a direct contradiction to the idea of a maximally great being existing all together however, because a being cannot be both perfect and unlimited but this being must have these qualities in order to have the title of maximally great. If its possible for this being not to be unlimited, then it's possible for this being to only be great enough to occupy almost every possible world (which means, this being doesn't necessarily exist in the actual world). Thus, the theist must accept that a maximally great being is necessarily perfect and unlimited. "lets take a basic math formula, f(x) = 7 - x^2. The maximum for this equation is f(0) = 7. Of course, we all know that 8 is greater than 7, but 7 is still the maximum for f(x) simply because it is the maximum possible for that formula. "My opponent's little math equation here was also nothing more than a straw-man that really had nothing to do with my argument. If a being is unlimited, then there is no maximum and it would make sense to go from 7 to 8 if there was no preceding criteria (of course, an unlimited being wouldn't have to follow any criteria). However, if a being is perfect then my opponent would be right, going from 7 to 8 would make no sense if 7 is the best possible. This is why I'm saying a maximally great being is impossible, because the necessary qualities a being must have to be maximally great (being perfect and unlimited) contradict each other. William Lane Craig has said that the only way to falsify the ontological argument is to show that the idea of a maximally great being is incoherent, and I have done this successfully. "Now, to move on to my own argument. Since "maximally" is defined as the greatest possible,then a MGB must be possible. "This completely ignores the fact that to be maximally "great" the being must be unlimited, because it is greater to be unlimited than limited, thus in some possible world a being improves it's greatness due to having no limit or "maximum". If this being is unlimited, then any level of greatness is possible, if it wasn't, then this being wouldn't be unlimited. To deny a maximally great being the ability to be unlimited, is to deny him the ability to jump from some possible world to all. An unlimited being is a crucial aspect to the ontological argument as well as perfection. ConclusionWell, it seems my opponent barely scratched the surface of my argument. If the being is perfect, then this being's greatness cannot be logically improved upon (my opponent seems to agree, with her math example illustrating my point). However, if this being is unlimited, it's greatness being improved upon is necessarily possible. Now, if the being is anything less than unlimited, then its possible for a maximally great being to not occupy every possible world. Thus, I have pointed out a clear contradiction in the idea of a maximally great being and my opponent didn't even come close to adequately refuting it I'm afraid.