The Ontological Argument - valid or debunked?

[Angrboda]

...I presume that you would take the position that meaning has no naturalistic explanation...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.

From a purely scientific (in the most expansive sense of the word) point of view, it seems more rational to at least tentatively accept the theory that at appears to work rather than the one that doesn’t even exist. Naturalism has only a promissory note and no clue how to fulfill it.  It seems to me that the only reason not accept the standing theory is a bias against it.

Or perhaps this so-called standing theory depends on auxiliary hypotheses which themselves have become problematical. That a theory has a history is no reason to respect it. It must stand on its own merits. And one of the demerits of what I presume you are referring to is that the mechanism is unknown.

For what it's worth, I discount this 'standing theory' for several reasons, a) it's not so much a theory as an ineffable group of intuitions, b) I have the glimmerings of a naturalistic account, and c) there has been precious little support for magic theories of phenomena but plenty of support for naturalistic ones. Are those unreasonable biases? I don't think so.