The ontological argument relies on the word “good” to arrive at the conclusion: “The max-good being must necessarily exist because existence is a good. This being all men know as God.”
The question is whether “good” is an analytical or a synthetic concept. Or, whether it is an arbitrary construct or a real/true concept.
Given the ability to slip one “free” word into a proof, one can prove anything. For example: the word “finkelvole” is a concept agglomeration signifying, “All men named Socrates are ladyboy pole-dancers.” Therefore, given the statement, “Finkelvole. Socrates is a man,” it necessarily follows that Socrates is a ladyboy pole-dancer. This proof does not correspond with reality, because “Finkelvole” is an arbitrary synthetic construct.
I submit that, for epistemological purposes, all human moral valence is hopelessly compromised by arbitrary mammalian simian evolutionary/sociobiological roots.
To prove this is a simple exercise. We list components of “goodness”, and then provide alternate sociobiological conditions under which they do not apply:
love – reptiles
joy – AI
peace – sharks
patience – mayflies
kindness – reptiles
faithfulness – bonobos
gentleness – sea urchins
self-control – cordyceps sinensis, virii, cats
existence – semelparous and matriphagic species, e.g. crab spiders
Thus “good” is an arbitrary construct of warlike mammalian apes, and unintelligible outside that context. It is unsuitable for proofs about reality in itself, but useful for exploring the human psyche.
The vast majority of what makes up a human being is similarly arbitrary and useless for epistemological purposes. However, one tiny portion, arguably the most important, is not: the monadic self-awareness.
Can we strip this monad of its monkey coloration, to achieve some objective morality? A common ground shareable between sentient mayflies, cats and crab spiders? I think not, but you are welcome to try.
I imagine the cat will have some trouble with Kant’s categorical imperative. “Do unto others… whatever I feel like… no, wait… whatever I can get away with… hrm, is my tail other? Gotcha!”
The truth is that only God can dictate moral valence, and thus we cannot use it to prove Him.