I've just listened to a BBC radio discussion of the ontological argument. I'm puzzled as to why the following objection was not even mentioned:
- The concept of "something than which nothing greater can be conceived" necessarily includes the attributes of being all good and all powerful. Something all good and all powerful would not allow suffering. Suffering exists, therefore the concept cannot exist in reality. The counter-argument that suffering is part of God's plan for us to work out our own salvation only reinforces the original objection by admitting that God is not great enough to come up with a better plan.
This argument is well known in philosophy in general, so why would it not be considered relevant to the validity of the ontological argument? God may still exist, but if He can't be all good and all powerful, the ontological argument for His existence is a non-starter.
I had the impression from the radio programme that the ontological argument is still entertained by some philosophers. How do they get round this objection?