I am reading this little book that gives a history of the arguments for the existence of God that have been advanced by theologians and philosophers in Europe. Naturally, Anselm’s proof, known as the Ontological Proof, is given pride of place. Wikipedia summarizes it thus:
1) Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2) I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3) Therefore, God exists.
Never seemed convincing to me, and a surprising number of churchmen, including Thomas Aquinas, were not swayed by it. On the other hand, the great atheist, Bertrand Russell, during his early Hegelian phase, said: “Great God in Boots! — the ontological argument is sound!” “God in boots?” Doesn’t say much for Hegelianism. The ‘proof’ lingers on, and I hear it thrown about by theistic journalists now and then.
I deal with it this way: I can get no clear and distinct idea of what God is supposed to be. It is a fuzzy, flexible, and profoundly unnecessary concept. (That is, it explains nothing.) Q.E.D. God’s existence is not proven.
I cannot prove that God does not exist, but why trouble oneself with that? I cannot prove the tooth fairy doesn’t exist. A concept that makes no sense and cannot be proven is best discarded.