I really feel like I should lay this out really simply for you.
Here is your logic:
Premise 1: God is infinitely influential
Premise 2: Something is more influential if it exists in reality
Conclusion: Because God is infinitely influential and maximum influence rests on existence in reality, God exists.
This is circular reasoning (logically flawed) because you are assuming that God exists in premise 1 when you claim that God is infinitely influential. You actually make it very clear that you are making this assumption in the rest of your syllogism.
Therefore, you cannot move past premise one until you prove that God is infinitely influential. Does that make sense?
Yeah what does infinitely influential mean? To me, it means determinism, to the point of every thought in the human mind, and every action, is infinitely influenced by a god.
Therefore, every single sentence of this thread, including this one, is infinitely influenced by a god. So how can any person on this thread hold any opinion about this argument other than the one that a god makes them hold?
@questfortruth must believe in the circular reasoning of the ontological argument, because an infinitely influential being is maximally influencing his belief in it.
Wow, that's another layer of circular reasoning nested
inside the main circular reasoning. Maybe we can go for
three layers of circular reasoning?