Aron Ra on The ontological argument

Aron Ra has little patience for the ontological argument, which he regards as a transparent attempt to define God into existence. His objection is straightforward: you cannot establish the existence of anything by manipulating definitions. The fact that you can conceive of a maximally great being does not mean one exists, any more than conceiving of a maximally great pizza means one exists.

Ra tends to engage the argument less as a philosophical exercise and more as an illustration of how theology goes wrong. The ontological argument, in his view, exemplifies the broader problem with natural theology: it starts with the desired conclusion and works backwards to find premises that support it, rather than following the evidence wherever it leads.

He has noted that the argument has failed to persuade the vast majority of philosophers throughout history, including many theistic ones. Even Thomas Aquinas rejected the ontological argument. When an argument fails to persuade the people best equipped to evaluate it — including people sympathetic to its conclusion — that is strong evidence that the argument does not work.