Ontological Defense

In class this week, we discussed ontological arguments for the existence of God. I like this argument because it implies that the very utterance of something means that it exists in some form. A mickey mouse with no ears does not exist, but to say it and imagine it, means that it exists as only a thought, but it does exist. That there is the idea of a being than which none greater can be concieved implies that the being exists. Since God is defined as a supreme being that exists in reality, there is no reality in which he does not exists. This makes it seem like arguments againsts the ontological argument could be dismissed and defended by using the appeal to ignorance. The inability to to disprove that God does exist proves the validity of the argument. Since the very definition of God a supreme being that exists in reality, there is no reality in which he does not exist.