Richard Dawkins on The ontological argument
Dawkins considers the ontological argument a conjuring trick with words that no one would take seriously outside theology.
Dawkins addresses the ontological argument in The God Delusion with undisguised contempt. He regards it as a verbal sleight of hand — an argument that confuses linguistic categories with reality. The idea that you can define something into existence by stipulating that it is 'the greatest conceivable being' strikes him as absurd on its face.
He cites the standard parodies: if the argument works for God, it works for the greatest conceivable island, the greatest conceivable pizza, or the greatest conceivable anything. The fact that these reductios feel decisive to almost everyone outside professional philosophy departments suggests that the argument's appeal lies in its obfuscation, not its logic.
Dawkins admits he is not a philosopher and does not engage with the technical literature on the ontological argument in depth. But he regards this as a feature, not a bug: an argument for God's existence should not require a PhD in modal logic to evaluate. If it does, it has already lost contact with the question it purports to answer.
“The very idea that grand conclusions could follow from such logomachist trickery offends me aesthetically.”