Can anyone explain Gödel's ontological proof in layman's terms?

That is a hard nut to crack.

I am still trying to wrap my brain around it(since I am neither a mathematician or philosopher) but with little headway.

If you're referring to his famous theorem, Gödel proved that not all true statements in mathematics can be proven to be true. There's nothing ontological about that.

Edit: There's no such thing as the ontological proof. There's the ontological argument, which is nonsense. What I was talking about is Gödel's theorem, made by a different man with the same name, which is about fairly advanced mathematics.

The ontological argument is a ridiculous argument for the existence of a supreme God. It runs as follows:

1. God is that than which nothing better can be imagined.

2. We can imagine God, so be exists in our imagination.

3. It would be better if God existed in reality

4. Therefore, God exists.

Why it's nonsense:

Just because you can imagine a God who would be greater if he actually existed doesn't make him magically exist. I do not understand why this is not obvious, but I'll prove the argument invalid with an example:

1. Imagine the perfect donut for you, a donut which is the absolute best donut possible for you. Your favourite flavour etc.

2. The perfect donut now exists in your mind.

3. The you-donut would be more perfect for you if it existed in your hand.

4. Therefore, the donut must exist in your hand.

Obviously the donut does not in fact exist in your hand. The ontological argument is just plain silly; Richard Dawkins apparently once used it to prove that pigs could fly. The argument could also apply to any deity. The argument is deader than dead.