Ontological arguments make God's existence at least slightly more likely

Thank you very much for the challenge and sorry for the wait, here is my only OA. I didn't have time for pictures or links to the works of supporting philosophers but I did manage to produce an ontological argument for the existence of God, with some serious thought, from my brain. I would consider this a success for my first post here on Debate.org. Please enjoy!Let's begin by trying to imagine a time before the universe, an era of nothing at all; no matter, no space, no light, no dark, no up, no down. I tried and couldn"t do it, but give it a shot and you will fail too. What we are trying to do is perceive nothing while perception is by definition "the awareness or consciousness of something." so to perceive nothing is to stop perceiving altogether which defeats the purpose of the exercise. Having deemed it impossible for us to look directly at nothing; perhaps we should take just one step back and do our best to think of something that is as close to nothing as it can get, redefining "nothing" as whatever is just the smallest bit simpler than that. To do this I will isolate an apple from the rest of the universe and remove pieces from it in my mind, one by one so as not to get ahead of myself, until I have reached a point where I personally cannot remove anymore from it. In a few moments I have hit the cellular level, then the molecular, the atomic, subatomic, and finally the infinitesimal, which is where I begin to question whether or not something of this "Infinite smallness" can actually exist. Everything we observe in nature has some length in all three spacial dimensions. (with the exception of concepts, as well as the photon, and electron, which seem to behave as point particles in certain situations) and so it is intuitively maddening to consider something thoroughly and materially existent that does not posses extent in these dimensions. This irritation arises from an insufficient definition of "Existence" or "Being" with which to judge something"s potential for being. Unsurprisingly, webster"s definitions of "existence" and "being" are of no help to us here and so we are left with no better option than to determine our own deeper definitions of these words. So what does it mean to exist? This I believe should be the largest, if not the only point of contingency in my argument, and so it hurts to do this but I am quite rushed writing this portion and so in leu of a proper explanation I will give you my definition as clearly as I can, as well as a thought experiment to back it up, and if there is any confusion or disagreement I am sure we can work that out in future rounds of the debate. Simply put: To exist, is to effect another existent thing. If something is effecting me, I know that it exists. If it is not directly effecting me however, I simply cannot know one way or another until it, though some chain of causes and effects, comes to effect me or my immediate environment, whereupon I can register it"s existence with my senses and/or my intellect. If something were to suddenly stop effecting the world around it then it does not exist as far as the world is concerned. The isolated apple on the other hand, although nonexistent in the system of the universe, can indeed exist in it"s own sub category of reality, because it is composed of a practically infinite number of smaller parts, which are in turn their own existent things, which qualifies the apple as a whole universe in itself, even apart from the far greater reality that we all enjoy. The infinitesimal on the other hand is necessarily comprised of only a single, infinitely small part. It stands to reason then, that when this infinitesimal is considered apart from any other thing it simply cannot exist on the condition that "To exist is to effect another existent thing.". The Isolated Infinitesimal does not exist.So what does this mean about the TRUELY atomic? This means that the most basic thing that can be said to exist independently of other existent things consists of 3 fundamentally immaterial elements; A member (in this case a singularity of infinitesimal dimensions), another member, and an abstract medium through which they may interact and so fulfill the condition they must effect to exist. (Think "logic" or "natural law" rather than the more familiar mediums of water, air, or space.) These elements, which necessarily lack physical properties and individual meaning, constitute an independently existent triad that does indeed possess physical properties (via the behavior of it's immaterial components) which should be observable only by observing the triad's behavior with other such things. Most notably: These members do not exist independently but only conjunctively and therefore lose any small degree of thing-ness if the larger system is disrupted. [Harry Potter does not exist, neither does Hermione Granger, and if even just one of them isn't there then they certainly can't speak to each other. If I were to say "Harry talked to Hermione." however, then something certainly does exist, the story of Harry Potter, which indeed has had a significant effect on the world around it.] [Although I do not personally subscribe to all of the catholic junk associated with the Holy Trinity, this idea does seem to suggest that if God were in fact the simplest possible existent being then he is necessarily in this strange condition of being simultaneously three inextricable parts and one part-less thing.]Now for the final step, what happens when we remove a part from this triad and make the system of the universe just a tad bit simpler? Nothing happens. Once a member of this triad is removed the two left behind are left with no way to fulfill the conditions sustaining mutual existence and so cease to be things altogether. Now we have nothing, and as I stated passingly earlier in the argument, the "abstract medium" of this triad, the medium which has just ceased to exist is natural law or logic itself. We wanted nothing and we got it, we were prepared to give up the world, but little did we know that would mean relinquishing logic as well. So what happens now? If logic/natural law truly is that medium through which things happen and so must also be the governing force responsible for separating those things which may and those which may not happen, then shouldn"t nothing... and everything happen? This is paradoxical, obviously, but what does it matter anymore now that God is dead? I insist that everything and nothing could have happened and in fact did happen. Nothing literally exploded into everything and not-thing that could ever be and/or should never ever happen, instantaneously. The moment that there was nothing there came every-bloody-thing. Now then what does this everybloodything look like? Let"s give it some properties; -Because this is "everybloodything" and there is no logic present to say that one thing cannot be simultaneously itself and another very different thing, this chaos would be pretty thoroughly (even infinitely) omnifarious (to say possessing of all forms.) -It is not only unrestrained by the laws of nature, but is also free of even logic itself and so must be omnipotent. -To say that "nothing created it" is the same as saying that it is "Uncreated", and nothing sure did create it!-We have determined that this thing is infinitely omnifarious and so it isn"t so hard to imagine that his thing may possess infinite minds. (or even just a single infinite mind.) If this is the case then it must also be infinitely intelligent or "omniscient" and because at least a few minds amongst this infinite horde must be vaguely human thinking, we can say that this thing is probably personal to an infinite degree.God - A personal, omnifarious and omnipresent, as well as "intelligent, omnipotent and omniscient supernatural being that created the universe(s) or is the universe itself, existed before all things and was not created."Time is ticking so I am afraid I will have to hit the brakes pretty hard, but I hope what I put out there is at least comprehensible, seeing as "pleasant to read" may be a bit much to ask for. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions or comments. Thanks for reading. You"re move Salam!