1. God is the greatest thing we can imagine.
   
2. Things can either exist in our minds or in our minds and in reality.
   
3. Things that exist in reality are better than things that exist only in our minds.
   
4. If god existed only in our minds, he wouldn’t be the greatest thing we can imagine because a god in reality would be greater.
   
5. Therefore god must exist in reality.

Wait, what? We may have missed a step here, and this is the leap that most proponents of the ontological argument hope will always be overlooked. Just because a real god would be greater than an imaginary god, doesn’t mean the real god exists. It is perfectly possible that the god in my mind would be the greatest that god could be.
Furthermore this argument could be made for anything.

1. A unicorn is the greatest animal we can imagine.
   
2. Things can either exist in our minds or in our minds and in reality.
   
3. Things that exist in reality are better than things that exist only in our minds.
   
4. If unicorns existed only in our minds, they wouldn’t be the greatest animal we can imagine because a unicorn in reality would be greater.
   
5. Therefore unicorns must exist in reality.

Anselm was soon made aware of this flaw in his argument so he quickly adapted it saying it only applied to necessary beings – those whose existence is necessary. This, of course, is nonsense; as is the whole argument. You cannot take that leap from imaginary to real without some form of demonstration of the possibility of its feasibility.

You could conceive of a god greater than the Abraham god because the conceived god would not be genocidal, homophobic, filicidal, megalomanical and misogynistic.

Therefore this god must exist in reality greater than the Abrahamic god.