Hello, Dr. William Lane Craig. I am S. And I am a 14-year-old from Syria. You have really saved my faith multiple times and I have taken your equip course to better defend the faith.

Anyway, on to the actual question, I have been studying the ontological argument and there seems to be a semantics issue when it comes to it.

Premise 1. God is defined as that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Premise 2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely in the mind.

Premise 3. If God exists only in the mind, then we can conceive of something greater, a God that exists in reality.

Premise 4. But this would contradict the definition of God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

This is a very simple version of the ontological argument, but for this question, it is not relevant. When it comes

to the first premise, the use of the word greater or perfect or whatever word that is used

seems often subjective. The defenses I've found online often say that this refers to having

a maximal degree of positive aspects, such as omnipotence, but even then

it still feels like positive is used as a subjective filler, and from an objective point

of view, words like great, perfect, or positive, have no effect on metaphysical realities

and remain subjective. I've seen a few skeptics even bring up the counter argument

that if humans hypothetically evolved differently or were created differently,

they would not share the same values as us.

So concepts like an omnipotent being,

being greater than limited power, are foreign and do not hold weight.

The main point is that value is not objective and seems to be a subjective matter,

that, when put into metaphysics, cannot produce a solid output.

I have even tried talking to AI chatbots, and they always crumble when playing the theistic role.

How do you reconcile this?

Oh, my goodness.

...