The Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God

The answer to the question of whether it is scripturally consistent for god to be human and divine would seem obvious to many, however I do think there are some objections which at least require consideration. For instance, the incarnation seems to move away from the Torah and some major fiercely held beliefs. God in the Torah continues to assert himself as radically different from the various gods worshiped by the people groups that surrounded them. The Roman gods, for example, were seen to constantly be interacting with humans, frequently being depicted as having children with them. (This was a common theme among many cultures). (insert example) The Jews, however, held that there was one God and that he was distinctly ‘other’ from humans
The Australian philosopher Douglas Gasking perhaps best articulates what I am trying to say in his formulation of the ontological argument. He argued God’s creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable. Just how great this achievement is depends on the quality and degree that the Creator was impaired. The greater the impairment the greater achievement the creation is. Gasking asserts that non-existence would be the greatest impairment to creating. Therefore if the universe was created by an existing creator he is not the greatest being that can be conceived, because a non-existent one would be greater. A non-existent creator is greater than one which exists, so God does not exist. His argument is a response to Anselm's assumption that existence is a predicate of perfection. Using this logic he assumes that non-existence must be an impairment. This is, of course, a ridiculous argument and is intended to be so. It does, however, go some way in demonstrating how there can be disagreement on what would be the necessary properties of the greatest being “God”. As a result we are unable to define what God is, based on reason alone. This means we still actually have some empirical work to do. We are left with the question, ‘How can we have any empirical knowledge of god?’. This leads me to postulate that God’s self-revelation is the only way we can have knowledge of god. Therefore only God can truly know if incarnation is physically possible and we don't even know if he does know, unless we have some type of revelation from God that would indicate he is the type of being that would know. Therefore we don’t have the necessary empirical information to claim it is physically impossible. This shifts the burden of proof to those attempting to quantify God. God’s incarnation therefore is not logically impossible and I don’t see how we can rule out that it is physically possible