The Modal Ontological Argument Establishes God's Existence

I will try to bridge the gap between every jump in step from 1 through to 7 and let my opponent sever any bridges or links between them as I believe this is the fairest way to engage in this debate.1-2The jump from step one to two is possibly the easiest one to explain out of the six because it's purely semantic. The premise one is the undeniable premise that a maximally great being (also called God within the premise of this argument) is possible to exist. Then to get to step two all one has to realise is that it is therefore possible that some possible world will definitely have a maximally great being within it because it is definitely possible (premise one). In essence the possible world being proposed is equally possible to the maximally great being from step one.2-3If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, one can then realise that every possible world can have this maximally great being. Step three is often misinterpreted by an atheist reader as suggesting that every possible world must have a maximally great being present because it doesn't extend to mention that there are also some possible worlds with a maximally great being absent. It is however true to say that one could eternally imagine new worlds all having a maximally great being in common since the possibilities are literally endless. The key thing to not here is that if a maximally great being exists in some possible world then every possible world one can imagine can definitely have this maximally great being in it. If one can see how this works than one has successfully grasped the jump from step two to three.3-4The jump from step three to four is illogical at a first glance and the main jump at which atheists try to tear the argument apart. The reason for this is that, if taken at face value, step three does not warrant step four because the actual world might not be one of the set of possible worlds in which a maximally great being exists. This is actually not a problem with the ontological argument but with the way that step four is worded. The wording of step four is set up in such a way that what one would interpret on a first read will probably be that since every possible world can have a maximally great being in it that this means that the maximally great being exists in the actual world. On the other hand, if one actually observes the way step four is worded and flips it backwards they can see that what step four is actually stating is that if our actual world is one of every possible world then there is no doubt that it definitely can have a maximally great being in it. If you take the section of step four after the word 'then' and flip it around with the section before that and insert the word 'because' in the middle it reads "A maximally great being can easily exist in the actual world because every possible world can have one." the problem is that the formatting of step four indicates an assertive undertone which isn't present when you flip it around.4-5The problematic wording of step four is again raising a problem when we take the jump to step five because it doesn't seem to make sense the way it's been structured as a sentence. This is why one has to read deep into step four, as I explained in the step '3-4' section, and use this interpretation to understand how to get to step five. Step four is stating that since the actual world is one of every possible world (and every possible world can have a maximally great being in it) that the actual world can undoubtedly have this maximally great being present in it. Step five continues from that line of logic to state that if a maximally great being can undoubtedly exist in the actual world, it therefore exists in the actual world. Whilst this doesn't state the fact that it's possible that the actual world exists absent of a maximally great being it hasn't actually stated the latter argument to be false. It is stating that the possibility of the actual world having the maximally great being is completely undeniable if we go back to premise one that it therefore means that the actual world, which is merely one of every possible world, definitely has the possibility of having the maximally great being in it.5-6If you have agreed with everything said so far then you will understand why it is reasonable to assume that a maximally great being exists. It's reasonable to assume this because it's absolutely possible and no evidence against it (which would be probability as opposed to possibility) has been presented so far. step five to six is the jump which goes from accepting a fact to appreciating its validity. The fact I am referring to is that it is absolutely without any doubt that the possibility of the actual world exists with a maximally great being in it is one of undeniable validity and that there is thus no plausible case to defy this possibility at all.6-7God is a maximally great being so that is why seven is true if six is true.Think of it like this:A maximally great being = a catGod = a cat named GodIn conclusion, the Ontological argument establishes that the possibility of God existing is absolutely undeniable if one accepts the fact that it is possible that a maximally great being to exists in the first place. It is true that it doesn't deny that the absence of God is equally possible but it does establish the possibility God's existence with full validity throughout. It is very important to remember that there is absolutely no regard for the probability of God's existence because God has no evidence for or against it at all so this is purely in regards to its possibility and how valid it is to consider it possibility.