I'm not sure how "God exists" follows from "We use a technical term to describe a possible attribute of God." I mean, I don't actually believe in divine simplicity. But I suspect this is a tangent.

No, possible worlds aren't like alternate realities, though that's the easiest analogy. For most philosophers, with my apologies to the Australians, talk of possible worlds is merely a heuristic device.

asaris, so you speaking of theoretical constructs, not subjective differences. i think that, at least in my understanding, a presumption of certain properties which would reduce to God; such as divine simplicity, seem to be circular. the very presumption of a series of properties which reduce perfection -> god -> God. it just seems like a bunch of steps are skipped in there, which at any point my lead one to a series of spiritual postulations with equal validity.

this would seem to be related, but not quite the same, as "God" as signifier

god is neccessarilly the greatest being imaginable. Anyone who imagines otherwise is playing with themselves...in their minds at least.

Why do you say that, OCM? When I say God, I just mean, by definition, that being than which none greater is possible (not imaginable, possible). I suppose it is possible (epistemologically, I mean) that that being I worship is not the greatest possible being. But that just means I'm mistaken about who I'm worshipping, not about what the word 'God' means.