I think the explanation from wikipedia makes more sense (to me anyways) than the little graphic in the article: In Chapter 2 of The Existence of Nature and G

I think the explanation from wikipedia makes more sense (to me anyways) than the little graphic in the article: In Chapter 2 of The Existence of Nature and God Anselm′s Argument for the Existence of God is as follows: 1. God is something of which nothing greater can be thought. 2. God may exist in the understanding. 3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding. 4. Therefore, God exists in reality Anselm's second argument Anselm in his Proslogion 3 made another a priori argument for God, this time based on the idea of necessary existence. He claimed that, if God is that than which no greater can be conceived, it is better to be necessary than contingent; therefore, God must be necessary. To sum up: 1. God is the entity of which nothing greater can be thought. 2. It is greater to be necessary than not. 3. God must therefore be necessary. 4. Hence, God exists necessarily. I like to think about the whole God topic with Immanuel Kant's theories in mind (i.e. that there may be things that exist but that we cannot physically reason about). In that light, I'd say that the difference between a startup and God (by the omnipresence definition, anyways) is that your startup must be human-made by definition, thus it cannot exist in a manner that cannot be reasoned about.