There are two types of discussions to approach the existence of God. Post hoc discussion is based on the real premise of our own experience to define things. Unless you experience using five visual methods, olfactory method, auditory method, tactile method etc., this means that you do not know the real thing. According to Elliot Sober's book "Core Issues", this truth is the truth. The truth afterwards is "the fact of requiring knowing (or justifying) experience" (84).
However, it can be said that the ontological argument defines God as an existence using an analytical form. Immanuel Conde rejected this. He believed that the existence of predicates and wealth could not define God. For example, the analysis that "hostess is unmarried woman" is a synonym and the definition is repeated, it is the truth. However, if you want to add a predicate, it will not directly affect that sentence. In other words, it means that there is no character to be a god. We know that "evil" exists, do you know whether this "existence" can be the same as the "existence" of God? They will argue that the ontological debate fails to understand and does not make existence a sign of God.
Chotiner is absolutely right. If you define God as our most admired desire, God will certainly exist. But you can also define God as our most unpleasant ambition: greed, crime, crime etc. By definition, this kind of God may exist. As a source of all evil. I insist that, in fact, like the "good" God of Heart, the same applies to God's evidence. Readers can entertain themselves by thinking about other types of irreversible gods.
Moses Ben Maimon, commonly known as Mimonides, is a Jewish scholar who logically prove the existence of God. Mymonides provided evidence of the existence of God, but he did not first define God as many others did. Instead, he used the depiction of the Earth and the Universe to prove the existence of God. He talked about the celestial bodies and how they are committed to eternal movement. According to Maimonides, each physical object is limited, so it can contain only limited power. If everything in the universe, including all planets and stars, is finite, there must be infinite power to drive all the movement of the universe. The only thing that can be reduced to infinite existence and explain the movement is the infinite presence (meaning God), which is neither a body nor a body's power. Maimonides believes that this argument gives us the reason to believe in God, not the reason for believing in God.