Ontology is only as good as its assumptions and premises. It is evidence, not ontology that proves a proposition.
One way to look at is.... Ontology is the study of reality. Ontology is supported by objectivism, thus has ability to be proven. For example, organizations in which we carry out data collections for our research exists in reality and can thus be proven.
Another to look at it is... Ontology is not itself reality; it is theory of, or words about, reality.
More....Ontology is the study of being, it tries to understand the reality.
In sum....i agree with you.
The ontological argument for God is based purely on deduction based on inference. You can apply the principle to any number of things you get a conclusion that is logical, based on the given assumptions, yet has no bearing on objective reality.
When it comes to modern versions of the ontological argument, you either see it or you don’t.
Whether you see it or don't has no relevance to the validity of an argument. Semantics alone do not prove a proposition, if that proposition is taken to be more than just a concept or idea.
An argument stands or falls on its own merit, some may see the reasons for its success or failure, others may not, but what some see or do not see doesn't alter the validity of the argument.
Ontology alone is not sufficient to establish the proposition that God is real and exists regardless of whether we happen to believe or not.
