Take 2 - Ontological Argument

I went into a hissy fit a couple of days ago over the Ontological Argument that Tim Delaney took down on the Secular Web. My original intention was to just present the premisses, data, warrants and conclusions as they appeared, and point out the problems I had with them. This was in contrast to Mr. Delaney's approach, which centered on the lack of empirical evidence. Although he's correct - there is no data and no warrant provided that leads to the conclusion being claimed, the logical fallacies inherent in the stated argument are still worth cataloguing, so my simplified version follows. My comments to each component are surrounded by comment delimiters (/* and */).

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

/* ipse dixit (bare assertion); Non sequitur (conclusion does not follow the premiss(es) */

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

/* Non sequitur */

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

/* Non sequitur */

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

/* This is actually sound and true!!! */

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

/* Tautology (unnecessary - saying the same thing twice) */

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

/* Non sequitur */