By popular demand.

Here's one Ontological Argument (by Anselm):

1 - By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.

2 - A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.

3 - Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.

4 - But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.

5 - Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.

6 - God exists in the mind as an idea.

7- Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

There are various points at which this may be objected to (the logic equivalent of rebutting or disproving), but it is an interesting logic.

Here's the Plantinga Ontological Argument:

1 - The concept of a maximally great being is self-consistent.

2 - If 1, then there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.

3 - Therefore, there is at least one logically possible world in which a maximally great being exists.

4 - If a maximally great being exists in one logically possible world, it exists in every logically possible world.

5 - Therefore, a maximally great being (i.e., God) exists in every logically possible world.

 And if God exists in every possible world, he would have a savior for every possible world then right? Like Paul in Dune for instance?

That's a good question to which I don't think there is an available inspired answer.

Jesus' sacrifice was an "infinite and eternal" atonement.  Some interpret this as extending to all spheres of God's creations.  Personally, I think that's like saying we won the cosmic lottery to have him here.  I think that there is a sphere of existence in which we reside, and that Jesus' sacrifice was for all in that sphere.  Are there other spheres of existence?  Absolutely.  Does his sacrifice extend to those?  I don't know.  Does it extend to other planets with life?  I don't know that either.

Thats my point. If he created all the worlds, and LDS doctrine knows there are other sheep even out there, if they look nothing like us, then they would have a savior that looks like them, right? Or is it like in the animal world, they don't need it. Could bring up some interesting ideas. Because, technically, if we are made in mans image, we are the ultimate in the universe then?

The bible, (The word of God) was written specifically for us. Meaning, it is significant for most likely only us. God may have bigger plans for alien life form(Which I don't believe likely, and even less likely of them comer here), but the bible is written to us, and our directions for getting a relationship with God.

I don't think this is the case.  Christ's redemption allows for resurrection for all beings in this sphere of existence and allows them the opportunity to "fulfill the measure of their creation."

I think the only real scriptural reference we have is from the Book of Mormon:

"It behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him.  For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfill the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.  Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption.  Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration."

And also in Alma 34:10: "it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice."

As far as interpretations, here is what has been stated by Bruce R. McKonkie and Russell Nelson:

Bruce R. McConkie

“When the prophets speak of an infinite atonement, they mean just that. Its effects cover all men, the earth itself and all forms of life thereon, and reach out into the endless expanses of eternity….Now our Lord’s jurisdiction and power extend far beyond the limits of this one small earth on which we de\well. He is under the Father, the creator of worlds without number (Moses 1:33). And through the power of his atonement the inhabitants of these worlds, the revelation says, ‘are begotten sons and daughters unto God’ (DC 76:24), which means that the atonement of Christ, being literally and truly infinite, applies to an infinite number of earths.” (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 64-5)

Russell M. Nelson

“His Atonement is infinite—without an end. It was also infinite in that all humankind would be saved from never-ending death (see 2 Ne 9:7; 25:16; Alma 34:10,12,14). It was infinite in terms of His immense suffering. It was infinite in time, putting an end to the preceding prototype of animal sacrifice. It was infinite in scope—it was to be done once for all (see Heb 10:10). And the mercy of the Atonement extends not only to an infinite number of people, but also to an infinite number of worlds created by Him (see DC 76:24; Moses 1:33). It was infinite beyond any human scale of measurement or mortal comprehension. Jesus was the only one who could offer such an infinite atonement, since He was born of a mortal mother and an immortal Father. Because of that unique birthright, Jesus was an infinite Being.”

So in effect, the universe is saved and redeemed by the one act of Christs birth and death, and we here on earth were the ones blessed enough to have it happen here. Makes some sense to me. I'd hate to think of Jesus having to do all that again on other worlds and planes.

Perhaps it has happened with others on other spheres of existence.  I don't know, but not as far as the eternity of our existence.  If you think of God as a circle, and therefore eternal, and all his creations inside that circle, then there are an infinite number of creations.  Does he have other circles?  Are there other spheres of existence with other gods?  We just don't know enough.

I find the ontological arguement rather lacking, several objections is an understatement.



This is assuming, on its face, several things.

1: That that is the accepted definition of God.  There is a difference between the First Mover and the Judeo-Christian 'God'.
2: God claims to be jealous in the Bible.  It is possible to imagine a God that is not jealous, in fact, many 'pagan' religions have a central 'God' of this sort - but worshipping it is pointless.
3: God also changes its mind in the Bible, gets angry, shows favoritism...  In a sense, the God of the Bible acts very human and fallible.  If we take this definition, then the God the ontological arguement attempts to prove is not the Christian one.
4: It assumes our minds cannot encompass the Universe.  It is not necessary for God to be the greatest being imaginable, it merely must be greater than the Universe.
5: It assumes you can imagine such an entity in the first place.



This also opens up the arguement to other realities.  A similar arguement could be made for heaven.

In addition, a First Mover is not necessarily greater than the idea of it.



If God does not exist in reality, God does not exist, and is relegated to the status of being merely 'the greatest thing you can imagine'.  It is possible to imagine a great many things, after all.



The imagination of an insect is less than mine.  If my imagination is greater than yours, does that mean my 'God' exists and yours does not?



See above.  The premise is flawed.



I don't think so myself.  It's an old arguement by people with a very arrogant and flawed understanding of the universe.

You're attaching a point of view to "imagination."  There is no such intention in the premise.  Therefore, also being able to imagine such an entity is irrelevant.

The premise cannot be flawed.  It is merely definition.

This isn't a Biblical God argument; just God.

We are talking about a "being" here.  I don't understand what being "greater than the Universe" has to do with it.  It is simply the greatest being possibly imaginable.

Your conclusion is just namecalling with no substance.  There is a more classic rebuttal to this argument that you didn't hit upon.