Ontological arguments - where's the beef?

Such as?

You are confusing an activity with an entity. There are things that cannot be done but we have evidence that they cannot be done. You start by saying not existing and then switch your meaning to cannot be done.There is no evidence for or against Mod's Maximal being, only philosophical arguments.So you point about Mazdas is about doing something (a verb), rather about an entity's (a noun) existence.Two very different things. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Here Mod draws the distinction between doing and being. As far as I can see from this post Mod is clarifying he is describing an entity, not an activity. My understanding is that you were follwing Mod's point of an entity, here. Here I ask for an example of an entity (following on from my understanding of Mod's point and your reply). These are activities, rather than entities.Frankly the OP talks about an entity from the outset. It is not until you post about Mazdas that there was a change from a maximal great being to someone doing something.So again I ask the question: such as?

Rather than assume it is not possible one should say we do not know at this point in time if it is possible.

Something being present is cast iron evidence that 'it' exists but something not being present is not evidence that it does not exist.Simply that it is not there.So if the maximal being is presented one can say 'yes he exist in 100% possiblity'.If the maximal being is not present the most you can say is 'I don't know if he exists'.If on the other hand you searched under every rock in the universe at every point in time and found no maximal being, what could we say then?