Reverse Modal Ontological Argument: Symmetry Lost?

This paper argues that when modal claims are given appropriate epistemic weight, affirming the epistemic possibility of a Maximally Great Being (M) commits one to certain ontological consequences. In particular, if the sceptic concedes that M is epistemically possible, this undermines the conclusion of the Reverse Modal Ontological Argument (RMOA), which requires M to be impossible in all possible worlds. I argue this asymmetry motivates a preference for the Modal Ontological Argument (MOA) over the RMOA unless the sceptic can show that M is conceptually incoherent.