Michael Shermer on The ontological argument
Shermer dismisses the ontological argument as a logical curiosity that confuses conceptual possibility with actual existence.
Michael Shermer's treatment of the ontological argument is brief and dismissive. As a science-oriented sceptic, he finds the idea that you can prove the existence of anything through pure reasoning — without any empirical evidence whatsoever — fundamentally misguided. The ontological argument, in his view, is a philosophical parlour trick: an argument whose conclusion is smuggled into its premises through a clever manipulation of the concept of 'greatness.'
Shermer often notes that the ontological argument has failed to persuade even many theistic philosophers. Thomas Aquinas rejected it; Kant argued that existence is not a predicate. The fact that the argument is still debated after nearly a thousand years, without having convinced much of anyone, suggests to Shermer that there is something fundamentally wrong with it — even if the exact flaw is disputed.
His pragmatic objection is perhaps the sharpest: if the ontological argument worked, it would be the most powerful argument in the history of philosophy — a proof of God's existence from pure reason alone. The fact that it is not treated as such, even by most theists, tells you everything you need to know about its actual persuasive force.
“If you could prove God exists just by thinking about it really carefully, don't you think someone would have settled the question by now?”