I know informally and colloquially the argument is put on terms as you are using here:
"it's possible that god exists" instead of "God who exists in all worlds including ours, exists in some possible world"
But, that´s not how stated the argument.
The argument as I stated is not about a being who exists in all worlds including ours, exists in some possible world, which is what you are attacking, but about a property that is possibly exemplified.
so you are attacking an strawman.
When you say that property X is exemplified it means there is a possible world, in which object with property X exists.
When you say it's possible object Y exists, you mean there is a possible world in which we find object Y.
Maximall greatness include a necessary existence in all possible world.
To be honest I don't understand why you wrote "possibly, maximal greatness is exemplified", exemplified or possibly alone would be enough.
Don´t second read me. Look, only people with mental and cognitive problems, honestly and truely, think that evil is an excellent thing to be, and they belong behind white walls or bars, away from society. So, that´s just a nonsensical question, and, as I said questions are not objections, so, I have no clue what you are asking or trying to say with such a question.
If not for all these quite formally written posts of yours that I saw, I could indeed believe you have had a problem with a concept of maximally excellent being whose property is omnimanevolence instead of omnibenevolence. But I saw them so to be honest I don't buy your excuse here.
What about this argument?
1. Object is X if it's mystical, eternal ball of energy capable of creating universes
2. Object is Y if it's X in all possible worlds
The concept of God as a supreme and wholly perfect being was not made by me, it´s the concept of God Christians (and the other great monotheists religions) have developed for centuries.
It doesn't matter who created it, nor how long it took, now that it's already here. I hope you're not suggesting otherwise.
I did not just made this today so I can score rethorical points in our exchange, like you are doing, with ethernal balls and necessarily existing diabolic beings, namely, these are ad-hoc, unnatural, and not in common use concepts you are making up just (as you yourself admit) for the sake of sustaining your position.
It doesn't matter whether concept is 1000 eyars old, or 10 hours long. MGB is made up too, and it's unnatural as well. Even if it wasn't what does it change? The fact it's common concept is an argument ad populum - useless. It's ad-hoc as well. However I still don't understand what does ad-hoc means in this context. nontheless given full analogy between our concepts it must be true that if mine is ad-hoc yours is too. Age doesn't affect it.
Generally speaking by your logic I just need to popularize my concepts for long enough, and then suddenly they become natural, and common, therefore more valuable that's your answer. It's total ad populum and "ad history". Or maybe you hope there are some laws of logic or nature which somehow prevent evil god from existence?
On the later concept of a totally diabolic being that exists in every possible world, why think total diabolicness requires exemplification in all possible worlds, what is the history of the concept? (barely any exists, if at all) has it survived scrutiny for centuries? (not , it hasn´t)
Again, historicity adds plausibility or credibility? Since when? And what kind of scrutiny do you mean? It's definition, and if it's coherent so what fault do you wish to find here? Or maybe you suggest there must be some independent evidence to support the existence of my defined object? That would count as admision of my point.
I don't have to explain why I think total diabolicness requires exemplification in all possible worlds, thats my definition. But if you wish, here is quick response - I think you're more diabolic if you cause evil in more than one world.
This type of manichaean view of evil is not favored today, by philosophers that study the subject. So, why think it is possible? (answer, there is no reason)
So you mean laws of logic or nature care whether your made up being is maximally good or maximally evil? That's interesting. Why do you think maximally good being is possible? Historicity, long time of development, tradition, popularity, etc. Aren't good answers here.
These are no good objections, they missconstrue the argument with respect to modal epistemic matters.
Well you still didn't respond to anything.
And you also didn't addres my hypothetical String theory example. Let's say strings always existed, and they are fundamental, let's say we have scientific proof for it. What then? Are you then going to call them god? Or are you going to claim that still, there must be something beyond them? Or maybe MOA proves that it's never going to be a case?