There's been a number of attempts at these ontological proofs over the years, but, in philosophical jargon, they're bollocks.Just gonna leave this here to fuck with AtheistJoe's head!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... ical_proof
They do create some problems for atheists because the lines of reasoning are difficult to get your head round, but they basically rely on accepting all of his 'take these statements as true' axioms, e.g.multiple/infinite universes in which all possible things exist. There's no justification offered for believing the first part and the second part isn't logical. An infinite universe could exist but there could still be possible things that don't exist in it.
Additionally, the idea is that we can conceive of a God who is completely positive and that real things are better than conceived things so God must exist.
The theorem is valid IF you accept the hypotheses, but that's a pretty big ask. Most people would doubt the statement that because we can conceive of things they must exist.
Using his argument you could argue that we can conceive of women more beautiful than any woman ever seen, who is purely positive, so she must exist and be better than we can conceive. However, you'll probably still wake up with the missus tomorrow morning, not your perceived goddess.
If you can't afford drugs, read through some arguments for and against his 'theorum'. Your mind will end up well and truly scrambled.
With all due respect, mate - you are so full of shit.