Conceptual truth versus empirical truth

Ontological arguments seek to affirm existence of a priori empirical truths by use of logic. I focus on Godel's ontological proof. Axioms utilized are definitional by usual standards, which is one reason why controversies surrounding the proof still linger on. I argue that logic without empirical supports can only be used to prove conceptual truths. In order for logic to prove empirical truths, definitions and axioms used must be based on established truths of actual reality. How Thomas Aquinas's criticism of ontological arguments unfolds in context of modern modal higher-order logic is discussed