To be specific, as the as argument is mostly (only?) challenged on premise 1. Anyone know of conservative Xns objecting to that premise? Perhaps on anti theistic-argumentation grounds even? If not, why don't theists like it more?1 It is possible that a maximally great being exists.2 If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.3 If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4 If a maximally great being exists in every possible world then it exists in the actual world.5 If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.6 Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
In my view, as a conservative Christian, there are a number of problems with the Ontological Argument, as follows:1. It assumes a hierarchical view of God, in which God is viewed as the greatest being in a pyramid of "greatnesses", hence we have the confusing term "maximal greatness".
This smacks of a view of God consistent with a certain medieval view of the Church and society, but it is, in my view, incoherent.
God is the source of all greatness and goodness, and therefore, objectively, is the only being who can be said to be 'great' or 'good'.
A hierarchical view of God is elitist and thus oppressive
...and also seems to suggest that beings other than God can possess legitimate greatness independently of the greatness of God.
2. It is presented as an a priori argument, but the terms used are ill defined and vague. What precisely do we understand by 'greatness' and 'possible' as in the phrase "possible worlds"?
And how are those definitions justified?
Take Gettier cases as a counterexample of your assertionThey are a-priori arguments against a certain conception of knowledge, yet, with out having anything even remotely close to the term knowledge definition being justified beyond any reasonable refutation, Gettier cases are solidly sucessfull to command the whole of the field of epistemology in heoric efforts to develop a new more complete and correct account of knowledge.