I think of the ontological argument as a kind of pointless philosophical roundabout which only connects in a circle for some because they already believe God ex

I think of the ontological argument as a kind of pointless philosophical roundabout which only connects in a circle for some because they already believe God exists and can't -- emotionally or physically -- truly posit a world where He doesn't. The argument "works" because they simply can't/won't think of atheism as a legitimate position. I've had exactly that kind of "debate" with the religious where in the end it falls down to either "how can you actually think that?!", or, worse, "you're crazy/silly." In that mindset, the argument seems self-evident. Or something. And I tend to think of the intricacies of the words of Anselm and others of his era like this: We sit on these forums debating programming languages, or go off and write code, or play with mathematics, or etc. because our human brains love intellectual puzzles. However in the middle ages, dark ages, whole swathes of intellectual paths were essentially off limits, or not even imaginable. So if you were of the intellectual bent, and love brain puzzles, you naturally engage in the form available to you in the dominant ideology and permitted by society at the time. Theology, theological philosophy, religious music, poetry, and art. They had all sorts of fun reinterpreting (pre-Christian) Aristotle and Plato to try to puzzle a way to get a Christian spin on them, for example. I remember in my 2nd year philosophy of religion class going through all the theodicies, and in the end summarized with: there are profound holes and problems with all of these. But in the end the only real argument for religion and God that works is the argument from experience. If people feel they experience God ... I can't really argue or debate that. That's for them. Which is why I leave my heavily religious sister and parents alone on this topic.