An Incomplete Education - 3,684 Things You Should Have Learned but Probably Didn't p.360"...... THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: This is an example of the old philosopher's dream of explaining the nature of the universe through sheer deduction (see page 333); also, of how slippery a priori reasoning (see page 334) can get. The argument, which probably originated with St. Anselm back in the Middle Ages and which hit its peak with Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, the Continental Rationalists of the seventeenth century, runs as follows: We can conceive of per fection (if we couldn't, we wouldn't be so quick to recognize imperfection) and we can conceive of a Perfect Being. God is what we call that Being which em bodies all imaginable attributes of perfection, the Being than which no greater Being can be conceived. Well, if you're going to imagine a Perfect Being, it stands to reason that He exists, since a Perfect Being that didn't exist wouldn't be as perfect as a Perfect Being that did, and isn't, therefore, the most Perfect Being you can imagine. (Is He?) Hence, by definition, God exists. (Doesn't He?) If you're still reading at this point, you may already have noticed that the ontological argument can be criticized for begging the question; that is, it as sumes, at the outset, the very thing it purports to prove. Still, when you think about it, the argument is not nearly as simpleminded as it appears. Just where did you get your idea of a Perfect Being if you're so sure no such thing exists?......."
One of the best explanations found yet https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_936326&feature=iv&src_vid=RQPRqHZRP68&v=ixqsZP7QP_o and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68&src_vid=ixqsZP7QP_o&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_947312
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZkx7yZrtRY Carneades.org replies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r92bK_S72zI Carneades.org replies
modal perfection argument
Robert Maydole. Maximal Greatness is a possible property from Modal logic.
Google See "The messianic Drew"
All the arguments for and against the Ontological argument are assuming that they are ultimately not somehow using circular reasoning. From Agrippa they are, either virtuous or rhetorical(vicious)