A version of The Ontological Argument was what made me believe in God. However, rather than showing that there must logically be an upmost Good and since this is by definition God, therefore He exists, I used a different version after pondering over what we mean by ‘Good’. And it seems to me that something is ‘good’ if it is, to whatever degree, loved. The Highest Good, then, could be simply defined as the Highest Love since the greatest value is that which is most loved. And this could be defined as God, since God is Love. Indeed, the greatest kind of Love (I am aware there is much more to say on this subject- particularly that the Love He most resembles is probably Agape).
This version taken by itself, however, leads one to a different kind of God to the one of traditional theism. For if God is Love and Love alone, this needn’t by definition be a God who helps us, guides us and has powers to save us from Death- for love ALONE is not lessened by inability to save the beloved or in the face of suffering.
But it seems to me logically correct to say that the furthermost Good is in fact that which is most loved- and this need only be a concept of what is loved. The rational Ontological Argument, therefore, is not about the highest Good but the Highest Love.
But the God it entails is quite different. So where am I logically going wrong?