An Explanation of the Ontological Argument

Kenneth Keathley says of the following video:

Does the Modal Ontological Argument prove the existence of God? It at least demonstrates that God���s existence, if possible, would be necessary. So the only way God couldn���t exist is if his existence was impossible. This means there is no 50-50 chance of God existing, no 10% or 90% either. Either God cannot exist or he must exist. The probability of God���s existence is 0% or 100%.

The existence of a necessary being is not contingent on anything else. Therefore, there can���t be one set of circumstances that would cause Him to exist in one kind of reality but another set of circumstances that wouldn���t, such that He would exist in some possible worlds but not in others. A necessary being can���t have a ���somewhat probable��� chance of existing in a particular world, because He exists by necessity; and the different possible circumstances one could imagine existing around Him have no effect on whether or not He exists, because He���s not contingent on any of them.

For this reason, if a necessary being is possible in any conceivable world, then He would exist in every conceivable world, including this one. 

I still have much thinking to do before this is settled in my own mind, but after watching this video and mulling it over for a few hours, this is the closest I���ve come to understanding (and finding meaningful) the ontological argument for the existence of God. Keathley's point is key: ���Either God cannot exist or he must exist.���

Give the ontological argument another chance. Take some time to think about it, and see how far you get. I���m interested in reading your comments as I���m working through this, but don���t comment if you haven���t watched the video.

(HT: @biolapologetics)