Best and worst arguments for the existence of God

[Georg Ebner]

Firstly a wishy-washy terminus like "argument" should be replaced by "prove".
Secondly the ontological prove works - but it proves only, that GOD must exist, not, that HE actually exists.
Thirdly we could know since KANT: one of our "antiNomies" is, that, if we were able to prove HIS existence, our own nous would be DIVine - and as a result noBody could exist above us...
Fourthly another antiNomy of KANT is, that we can neither imagine the universe to be ending nor to be endless (the same applies naturally to the "aToms"). Thus it is idiotic to try to prove or to refute any thing from the kosmos. "In my life I have seen many facts - but never any 'natural law'." (HUME) We do not know, whether the sun will rise tomorrow; not even, whether la vida is real or just un sueno.

[Georg Ebner]

Secondly the ontological prove works - but it proves only, that GOD must exist, not, that HE actually exists.

Can you expound this distinction?

What GAUNILO brought up against the ontological prove (the idea of a pure island, which can be imagined, but does nevertheless not exist) does not fit, because - as already ANSELM Himself replied - the idea of GOD as the summum
omnium is unique and can not be compared to any other idea.
Yet, that we subectively need for our daily life to believe, that the ontoLogy is in some way "rational" and mirroring verity, does not prove, that this is objectively true.
Compared to Europe's so-called "rationalists", who began - roughly with ANSELM - to mix empirical & rational sive us/world & GOD, the e.g. Jews were wiser, when being aware, that only HE can say "I am".