The “proofs” of the existence of God are both fun and funny. It’s not easy to choose the most amusing one, but one of my favorites is the Ontological Argument. Since St. Anselm proposed it in 1078, this argument has often been restated. Descartes provided a concise statement of one version of this pretty devious and murky proof (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological):
1. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e., a being having all perfections.
2. Necessary existence is a perfection.
3. Therefore, a supremely perfect being exists.
This argument (and others for God’s existence) has been discussed recently by Richard Dawkins in his excellent book The God Delusion (pp. 8O ff). So I would like to present my own devious ontological proof that Dawkins himself is God. I realize my proof contains logical holes, but probably no more than any of the proofs for the existence of a god(s):
1. Dawkins has shown that God is a delusion.
2. But if God did exist, he/she would be the most supremely perfect being.
3. By #2 in the Descartes proof above, existence is a prerequisite for perfection, so God comes up short on that score.
4. But If God did exist, he could certainly sway many minds.
5. In his books, Dawkins has swayed many minds.6. Since Dawkins clearly both does mind-swaying and exists, he is more perfect than God, and so must actually be God.