The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[Angrboda]

The argument is saying we are justified to believe that value and standards of more and less in value are not meaningless. I think it's hard to argue against that. If we are going to deny everything spiritual simply because it points to the Divine, then yes, there would be no arguments for the Divine.

But is this at all rational?

The real question raised by this argument is what is the nature of meaning. The proof asserts that it must come from having a standard or object of comparison, that a tree is a tree because it resembles some ultimate standard of treeness. But is this actually how meaning works? From our discussions I presume that you would take the position that meaning has no naturalistic explanation. Here it is important to distinguish 'in practice' from 'in principle'. That we do not currently have a naturalistic account of meaning is not evidence that no such account exists. That would be an argument from ignorance. So the proof relies on a gap in our knowledge to assert its conclusion. Is meaning supernatural in the way described in the proof? I don't think so, but opinions differ.